Brit Scientists Show HPV Vaccine Is Not Justified Anywhere

Gaia Health
by Heidi Stevenson

Just as it is in the west, the HPV vaccine is being heavily marketed in India. The heavy pressure to roll it out has resulted in tragic deaths of girls given the vaccines. Now, a report by the British Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has come out with a study demonstrating that the HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, cannot be justified in India. More scandalous, though, is that their results clearly reflect that these vaccines are even less justified in the western world, including the USA, UK, Europe, Canada, and Australia. That, though, is never mentioned in their report..

The primary point brought out by the study(1) is that the rate of cervical cancer is not high enough to justify the cost and risks associated with Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines. Further, the authors noted that the rate of cervical cancer in India has dropped dramatically in a little more than 20 years, from 43 cases per 100,000 in 1982-83 down to 22 per 100,000 in 2004-05. This point alone should clarify that the cause of cervical cancer is likely mostly associated with something that’s controllable in the environment. India’s standard of living has risen dramatically in the last 25 years, and that may be the most significant factor in cervical cancer rates.

The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which has close ties with the Bill Gates Foundation(2), is the primary force behind pushing HPV vaccines in India. Of course, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) also actively push them because they manufacture the vaccines.

The British study has harsh words for the conclusions that PATH reached. They quote the PATH document, “Shaping a Strategy to Introduce HPV Vaccines in India, “Results from the HPV Vaccines’ states that ‘in raw numbers, India has the largest burden of cancer of the cervix of any country worldwide.” Then, they state.

This claim is not supported by the references, moreover data from the cancer registries in Gujarat or the Cancer Atlas were not cited.

PATH selected Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat ‘based on cervical cancer disease burden’ and because they were ‘in the middle range for certain variables (e.g., immunization coverage)’. There are no references provided for this statement.

Of the five studies that PATH cites in relation to cervical cancer or HPV epidemiology, one study could not be traced; the HBCR report is not comprehensive and does not provide age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence rates; and the three remaining studies did not examine epidemiology of cancer but reported on HPV prevalence and type distribution. Only one study was conducted in Andhra Pradesh and none in Gujarat. The three studies were conducted in rural populations in the south, and urban populations in the south and north of India.

In other words, the British study found that the claims made by PATH are not supported by any evidence!

The authors concluded:

Neither the epidemiological evidence nor current cancer surveillence systems justify the general rollout of a HPV vaccination programme either in India or in the two states where PATH was conducting its research. HPV vaccination programmes should only proceed where there is both strong epidemiological evidence and where there are adequate surveillance and monitoring systems.

The cervical cancer rate does not justify the costs or risks for the HPV vaccine.

Study Implications for Industrialized Nations

This study about the lack of justification of the HPV vaccine in India has strong implications for its massive rollout in the west. All we need to do is compare the incidence of cervical cancer in India with those of western nations:

India United           States of America          United Kingdom
22 per 100,000       8.0 per 100,000(3)       10.5 per 100,000(4)

Even in terms of cancer rates, these are low. In the UK, the total annual rate of cancer as of 2008 was 466.3/100,000(4). In the US, the rate for 2008 was 517.6/100,000(5). The study did not give an overall cancer rate in India. It did, though, focus on the fact that the mortality rate (not incidence, but actually death rate) of Indian women from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases was 283/100,000, and compared it with the death rate from cervical cancer: 7.7/100,000.

In the US and UK, the cervical cancer rate is less than half that found in India. This study found that giving the HPV vaccine makes no sense in light of both its cost and harmful effects. This doesn’t even consider the fact that no cause-and-effect connection between HPV and cancer has ever been shown, so there is nothing to demonstrate that the very expensive HPV vaccines even accomplish what they claim.

The implication of this study for the industrialized nations is that the HPV vaccines make no sense, even without taking into account the question of whether they actually do prevent cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is a relatively rare disease. It isn’t even in the top ten cancers. Whether we like to accept it or not, the fact is that cost of medical treatment does matter. If we spend too much on one thing, then we won’t have enough to spend on something else. So, we must make rational decisions.

So, the question is: Does it make any sense to promote a vaccine for HPV? Consider these facts:

There is no proof that it prevents cancer.
The cost of the vaccine is extremely high and must be repeated at least three times for initial coverage and again every few years.
The rate of cervical cancer is quite low.
The cure rate of cervical cancer is quite high.
The adverse effects are devastating.
Clearly, it does not. Whether in India or a western nation, there simply is no justification for the HPV vaccines—unless, of course, you’re Merck or GSK.

Video of Study Author Discussing Problems Found in the PATH Claims

Professor Allyson Pollock, one of the paper’s researchers, is interviewed in this video. She states quite clearly that it will take at least 30 years to know if the vaccine works to prevent cancer and specifically states that PATH is hugely irresponsible in pushing the HPV vaccines in India. She clarifies quite clearly why the HPV vaccine makes no sense in India. It’s a shame she didn’t expand her comments to the use of these vaccines in the west [8:55]:

FDA Approved Gardasil Without Safety Testing: Proof in FDA Document


Would you willingly use a pharmaceutical product or subject your child to one if it hasn’t been safety tested?

If you’ve had the Gardasil vaccine or have allowed your daughter, and now your son, to be injected, that’s precisely what has happened. The proof has been hidden in plain sight on the FDA’s website since 2006.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval letter went out with statements saying that both short and long term studies were to be done.

Approval was immediate, not predicated on the results of those studies.

From the approval letter sent to Merck in 2006:

“You have committed to conduct a short-term safety surveillance study in a U.S. Managed Care Organization (MCO). The study will include approximately 44,000 vaccinated subjects who will be followed for 60 days for assessment of general short-term safety (i.e., emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths). The subjects will also be followed for 6 months subsequent to vaccination for new autoimmune disorders, rheumatologic conditions, or thyroiditis. … The final study report will be submitted by September 30, 2009.”

That references a single study that was to be performed in the United States for a short term 60 day assessment and another short term 6 month assessment.

It’s now nearly 2½ years after the date that study was supposed to be submitted to the FDA. I searched the FDA’s database for a reference to it … any reference to it. The search terms used were “merck gardasil safety assessment”. I also tried to find a reference in the journal literature.

All that exists on the FDA site is information based on the sorely inadequate VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data, where it’s estimated that less than 10% of all adverse events are reported.

In A summary of the post-licensure surveillance initiatives for GARDASIL/SILGARD, I found a reference to a study that appears to be a match for the requirement stated in the FDA’s letter. It was described as being done in association with Merck, planned for an MCO, and to include 44,000 vaccinated subjects. The sample size is referenced as being an FDA requirement. In fact, the study is clearly one published in the Internal Medicine study that I reported on in Farcical Study of Gardasil Safety: Medscape Gives CME Training Credit for It. It was published in November 2011, more than 2½ years later than the Gardasil approval requirement specified.

The FDA didn’t pull Gardasil from the market for the lack of safety data that Merck had agreed to produce. But it’s even worse than that. The requirement, as stated above, was for reporting of adverse events that occurred up to 60 days after vaccination and up to 6 months after. The study didn’t even touch on those time spans. It reported on a select group of diseases, which were chosen by the FDA. As the Farcical Study… article indicates, they are not the problems that are generally reported as adverse effects of Gardasil.

Clearly, the FDA does not stand as a guardian of the public’s health. They operate as a pusher of Big Pharma’s products. The Gardasil disaster demonstrates it clearly:

The FDA approved the vaccine without adequate testing for either safety or efficacy.
When the required testing hadn’t been done, or at least no report of it has been produced, the FDA allowed Merck to continue marketing the product.

When the study was finally published, it did not contain the documentation required by the original agreement.

In October 2009, shortly after the September 2009 deadline for reporting on the safety test had passed, the FDA actually expanded application of Gardasil to include boys.

To further exemplify the FDA’s utter lack of concern for the public’s health, the same document that granted approval to market Gardasil specified that efficacy against cervical cancer and prevention of the HPV variants included in the vaccine be monitored in a group of 5,500 Norwegian women. They are also supposed to investigate “pregnancy outcomes, especially congenital anomalies” in the study participants.

According to A summary of the post-licensure surveillance initiatives…, this study appears to be in process. But one must wonder how it will be adulterated, as the previous one was—and as the FDA clearly collaborated in the first study’s adulteration by providing a list of specific diseases to search for, rather than simply report on any and all adverse effects, how likely is it that December 31, 2018 will come and go with no study report or that the report, when it is produced, is done in a manner designed to give the false impression that Gardasil is safe?

Clearly, the FDA is not acting for the benefit of the people:

The FDA approved Gardasil without first making reasonable assurance that it was safe in anyone.
The FDA approved the mass use of Gardasil without having any information to indicate whether it will cause fetal harm. Remember thalidomide? Apparently, the FDA doesn’t.

The FDA turned their heads when Merck didn’t come up with the first safety study. They left Gardasil on the market.
The FDA approved Gardasil’s use in boys shortly after the first safety study wasn’t delivered. Can we assume that this approval was planned even before initial approval was given? It seems that the FDA was punked by Merck when it didn’t produce the trial, but went ahead with their approval plans anyway.
The FDA aided Merck in scamming the report of that first study by specifying conditions that weren’t those that people were reporting.
What more could we possibly need to know that the FDA is corrupt and should be disbanded?

Here is the FDA’s letter to Merck granting approval to market Gardasil and specifying the study requirements, which are highlighted in yellow, so you can scroll to them quickly:

June 8, 2006 Approval Letter – Human
Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11,
16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant

June 8, 2006 Approval Letter – Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant.pdf


60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child

International Medical Council on Vaccination, Feb. 4, 2012

The HPV vaccine Gardasil, which is being vigorously pushed on unsuspecting young girls and women to theoretically guard against cervical cancer still has never been proven to actually prevent cancer. On the contrary, evidence suggests that under certain circumstances the vaccine increases your risk of precancerous lesions by nearly 45 percent, and an ever increasing number of girls are being seriously injured by this unnecessary vaccine.

As of December 13, 2010, 20,915 adverse reactions had been reported in the United States alone, including 89 deaths, 297 miscarriages or stillbirths, and 370 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination.

Making matters worse, as of 2009 the US FDA approved Gardasil for use on young boys as well, and the first male death has also been reported. In September of last year, a young boy died just eight days after being vaccinated with Gardasil.

Folks, this is a disaster in the making. I shudder to think about the statistics we’ll see in a few years if parents fall for this nonsense.

I urge you to consider the risks already revealed in the four short years since Gardasil came on the market. Already, there are close to 21,000 reported incidents of adverse effects and death, despite the fact that only two out of every 10 women in the approved age group have gotten the vaccine so far.

Full story

CDC Now Pushes Gardasil HPV Shot on All Boys 11 to 12

Natural Society, Feb. 4, 2012

Will hundreds of more websites soon be popping up telling the tragic tales of young men whose life was riddled with adverse effects after receiving the Gardasil vaccine? Based on the devastating history of the HPV shot Gardasil, the answer is most likely an unfortunate ‘yes’. Following the advice of an advisory panel who failed to examine the high number of adverse reactions and deaths associated with Gardasil use, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is now recommending that all boys between the ages of 11 and 12-years-old receive the Gardasil shot.

The advisory panel and the CDC both fail to mention that Gardasil was linked to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths between May 2009 and September 2010 alone, which could be of major concern to parents considering injecting their children with the shot. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents.

Full story

300,000 Flu Vaccines Recalled Over Serious Adverse Reactions

Natural Society, Nov. 10, 2011

Baxter Healthcare Corp. has announced it is recalling around 300,000 doses of its Preflucel flu vaccine due to an ‘excessive’ amount of adverse reactions. Recalled from thousands of pharmacies and surgeries across Europe, the 300,000 units are to be immediately withdrawn. With seasonal flu vaccines already linked to nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome and narcolepsy and still being given out liberally to citizens worldwide, the adverse reactions must be quite serious in order to prompt a recall.

Even more concerning is the fact that vaccine makers actually have been given legal immunity thanks to a law signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Of course Baxter representatives are urging the public to stay calm, while also downplaying the risks associated with the shot. In the past NaturalSociety has revealed how Merck uses similar tactics to downplay the true side effects of the Gardasil vaccine, listing only minor side effects and ignoring the death link completely.

“The vaccine is being recalled because these side effects have been reported more frequently with this specific batch,” said a Baxter spokesmen. This spokesman also attempted to reassure the public that those who have already been vaccinated with Preflucel “should not be concerned (for their safety).”

Only time will tell what serious reactions are associated with this batch of Preflucel. In response to why the vaccine was recalled, Baxter states that “most of the side-effects are those usually associated with flu vaccines – they have started shortly after the vaccination and have been mild and short-lived.”

The problem with this statement is the fact that the seasonal flu shot has been repeatedly tied with serious adverse reactions. Therefore, it is not very reassuring that ‘most of the side-effects’ occur in the regular seasonal flu shot as well. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Baxter would not recall flu vaccines, or at least investigate them further, after it was found that they are virtually ineffective and linked to nerve disease if they truly cared about your health. Therefore, it seems reasonable that despite the reassuring language of the Baxter spokesmen, this batch of Preflucel must be linked to something quite nasty.

Full story

Related: Immune System Protects Against Flu, Not Vaccines

Governor Brown Takes Away Parents Rights in New California Vaccine Law | Health Impact News

The Progressive Mind, Oct. 12, 2011

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) today criticized California Governor Jerry Brown for bowing to pressure from the pharmaceutical and medical trade lobby and signing a controversial bill (AB499) into law that allows 12 year old children to be vaccinated without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The new California law allows minor children as young as 12 years old to be given Gardasil and hepatitis B vaccine, as well as future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases, without the informed consent of their parents.

“Under federal law, parents are supposed to get vaccine information before their children are vaccinated to help minimize risks and this new California law raises, rather than reduces, vaccine risks for children.”

Full story