July 30, 2014

Australia becomes first country to offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to young men based on questionable science

pin it button Australia becomes first country to offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to young men based on questionable science

Vaccines for children Australia becomes first country to offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to young men based on questionable science

New Study: HPV Vaccine and Evidence of Herd Immunity or Type Replacement?

By Norma Erickson, President
S.A.N.E. VAX, Inc
.

Medical professionals rely on studies published in medical journals to keep abreast of new developments in their field. What happens when published studies raise more questions than answers? Where does that leave trusting medical consumers?

On July 12, 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to formally offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to their young men. HPV vaccines have been advertised as ‘cervical cancer’ vaccines. Boys obviously do not have a cervix, so how do you ‘sell’ males on the idea of a three shot series of the most expensive vaccine on the market?

Miracle of miracles – almost immediately press reports begin to come in from around the world about a new study that supposedly demonstrates evidence of HPV vaccinations providing protection to the unvaccinated population. What an outstanding way to convince boys it is their duty to protect those around them.

Unfortunately, none of the articles reporting this ‘miraculous’ development provide a link to the actual study so a person can check for themselves. So much for responsible journalism!

Vaccine-Type Human Papillomavirus and Evidence of Herd Protection After Vaccine Introduction,” by Jessica A. Kahn, MD, MPH, et al., was accepted for publication in April 2012 by the medical journal Pediatrics, but will not be formally published until August.1

Historically, academic ‘experts’ paid directly or indirectly by the industry have cherry-picked populations with a high prevalence rate of HPV infections or cervical cancer to generate a set of data. They extrapolate the ‘scientific’ data obtained from irrelevant populations to promote a vaccine with questionable value or an analytically inaccurate HPV test for use in the general population.

In 2001, a group of employees of the National Cancer Institute, a major patent holder and financial beneficiary of HPV vaccines, did just that when they used a population with an extremely high cervical cancer rate in a subpopulation of Costa Rica during development of the HPV ‘cancer’ vaccine and an HPV test for cervical cancer screening.2 Then they helped expedite approval of HPV vaccines and an inaccurate HPV test through the Food and Drug Administration to be used in populations with little threat of cervical cancer progression.

In their most recent study, Jessica A. Kahn and her coauthors have done the same thing by using a cherry-picked subset of African American women with an extremely high rate (68.3%) of HPV infection for a statistical analysis to justify wide spread implementation of the HPV vaccination policy through so called “herd protection.” The authors conveniently ignore the fact that most American women under the care of gynecologists in private practice have a less than 10% HPV infection rate even when the most sensitive nested PCR amplification is used for detection. They also ignore the fact that African American women usually carry different strains of HPV viruses than women from other ethnic backgrounds.3

It is well known that test results obtained in a population with high disease prevalence rates cannot be extrapolated to a population with a low prevalence of the disease. These authors knowingly misapply their statistical data to support this “herd protection” hypothesis as if HPV infection had become a contagious disease like influenza in the classrooms of all high schools throughout the world.

It is unfortunate that their opinion, supported by public funding, is published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics as a continued medical education material to influence the practice of the pediatricians, policy-makers and health authorities.

This is particularly true when a careful reading of Khan et al.’s article reveals the following points:

  1. Vaccine-type HPV infections reportedly decreased by 21.9% in vaccinated participants; but vaccine-type HPV infections also showed a decrease of 14.8% in the unvaccinated group when compared to the data from 2006-07. These changes are especially remarkable given that many participants were sexually experienced, presumably exposed to HPV, and only 1 HPV vaccine dose was required to be considered “vaccinated” in this analysis.
  2. The authors should know there are 3 subtypes of HPV-18, namely the European, the Asian-American and the African subtypes.4 In the U.S., 91% of the HPV-18 isolates from white women are reported to be of the European and Asian-American variants, and 64% of the HPV-18 isolates from African American women belong to the African variants.5 The production of the Gardasil® HPV-18 VLPs uses the HPV L1 gene from the SW756 cell line6 which carries an African subtype of HPV-18.4 Therefore, any “herd protection,” even if conveyed to a subset of African American women by Gardasil® vaccination, cannot be automatically extrapolated to other races or ethnicities.
  3. Why do the authors of the study consider one shot of Gardasil® to give the participants vaccinated status when the recommended dose is a series of three injections? If one shot is enough, is three too many?
  4. The study utilized the Roche Linear Array for HPV typing. According to World Health Organization documentation, only 8 of 17 datasets in a worldwide survey using the Roche Linear Array assay reported a 100% proficiency result in HPV genotyping.7 (table 2) In 7 of the 17 testing sets, false positive HPV types were detected by the Roche Linear Array assay.7 (table 3) This information brings the entire study into question.
  5. The authors of the study state, “the overall HPV prevalence increased “modestly” between the two studies.” How can this happen if the vaccine provides herd immunity?

Consider the following data taken from the soon to be published article regarding this ‘modest’ overall increase in HPV infections. This chart is a representation of HPV prevalence changes discovered when the post-vaccination surveillance group of 2009-10 was compared to the pre-vaccination surveillance data from 2006-07:

HPV

All

Vaccinated Non-vaccinated
Any Type 8.5% increase 9.0% increase 1.8% increase
High Risk Type 1.1% increase 5.2% increase 7.5% reduction
Vaccine Type (16/18/11/6) 18.3% reduction 21.9% reduction 14.8% reduction
High Risk Vaccine Type 14.2% reduction 17.8% reduction 12.0% reduction
Non-Vaccine Type 14.0% increase 15.2% increase 7.6% increase
Non-Vaccine High Risk Type 7.6% increase 13.6% increase 2.7% reduction

Why was there no statistically significant change in HPV infection rates among the unvaccinated participants? Does this mean that other types of HPV are taking over the role of the vaccine-suppressed HPV types in the vaccinated? If so, will the other types become more dangerous than the suppressed ones?

Does this mean the manufacturer targeted the wrong types of HPV for this population? Or, does it simply mean the vaccine doesn’t work?

Does this article provide evidence of herd immunity or potentially dangerous HPV mutation/type replacement?

Is this simply another example of the quality one can expect from industry sponsored ‘scientific studies’ destined to be blindly accepted and widely quoted to influence worldwide health policies?

This study raised far more questions than it answered. Medical consumers deserve better.

References:

  1. Kahn JA, Brown DR, Ding L, Widdice LE, Shew ML, Glynn S, Bernstein DI. Vaccine-Type Human Papillomavirus and Evidence of Herd Protection After Vaccine Introduction. Pediatrics. 2012 Jul 9. [Epub ahead of print] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/07/03/peds.2011-3587.abstract
  2. HPV co-factors related to the development of cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica. Hildesheim A, Herrero R, Castle PE, Wacholder S, Bratti MC, Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Burk RD, Morales J, Rodriguez AC, Helgesen K, Alfaro M, Hutchinson M, Balmaceda I, Greenberg M, Schiffman M. Br J Cancer. 2001 May 4;84(9):1219-26.PMID: 11336474 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article Free textRelated citations
  3. Dunne EF, Unger ER, Sternberg M, McQuillan G, Swan DC, Patel SS, et al. Prevalence of HPV infection among females in the United States. JAMA 2007; 297: 813-9.
  4. Lurchachaiwong W, Junyangdikul P, Termrungruanglert W, Payungporn S, Sampatanukul P, Tresukosol D, Niruthisard S, Trivijitsilp P, Karalak A, Swangvaree S, Poovorawan Y.: Whole-genome sequence analysis of human papillomavirus type 18 from infected Thai women. Intervirology 2010, 53:161-166
  5. Xi LF, Kiviat NB, Hildesheim A, Galloway DA, Wheeler CM, Ho J, Koutsky LA. Human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 variants: race-related distribution and persistence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Aug 2;98(15):1045-52.
  6. Hofmann KJ, Neeper MP, Markus HZ, Brown DR, Müller M, Jansen KU. Sequence conservation within the major capsid protein of human papillomavirus (HPV) type 18 and formation of HPV-18 virus-like particles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Gen Virol. 1996 Mar;77 ( Pt 3):465-8
  7. http://jcm.asm.org/content/early/2012/04/19/JCM.00840-12.abstract

 

Vaccine Epidemic
How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children
by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland J.D.

Vaccine Epidemic bookcover Australia becomes first country to offer taxpayer sponsored HPV vaccines to young men based on questionable science

FREE Shipping Available!
More Info

 

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Doctors Against Mandated Flu Vaccines

Doctors Against Mandated Flu Vaccines

Mainstream news media sources (which are heavily funded by Big Pharma) would like everyone to believe that those in the medical field are united in their support of vaccines. However, there are many doctors and healthcare officials questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines today.

This is especially true regarding the issue of mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare workers. Doctors, nurses, and others are increasingly speaking out against mandatory flu vaccinations, especially in Canada.

A recent report in the Vancouver Sun quoted an emergency room doctor, Dr. Derrick Moore, as stating that he and 10 nurses refused to comply with mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare workers at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital in Victoria B.C. According to the Vancouver Sun, Dr. Moore stated that the health authorities in Canada were unable to pick on him and the nurses because of “strength in numbers” and the impact it would have on emergency room staffing if they were fired. He stated he believed doctors and nurses across Canada were refusing the mandatory flu vaccine.

Earlier this week, three medical doctors wrote an editorial in the Toronto Star opposing mandatory flu vaccinations for healthcare workers. They stated that the evidence of the benefits of the flu vaccine is not nearly strong enough to justify taking away a doctor’s choice to make the decision on whether or not they vaccinate themselves.

Thousands Sue for Damages Against Cholesterol Drugs as Big Pharma Defends Billion Dollar Industry

Thousands Sue for Damages Against Cholesterol Drugs as Big Pharma Defends Billion Dollar Industry

The $100 billion dollar cholesterol-lowering statin drug industry is under attack, as thousands of Americans are filing lawsuits against the manufacturers cholesterol-lowering drugs such as Lipitor. Research continues to confirm just how dangerous these drugs are, with yet another study published recently linking increased statin drug use to type 2 diabetes. Since the study was published by the American Diabetes Association, these known risks to cholesterol-lowering drugs can no longer be denied or defended, and the lawsuits are pouring in at a rapid pace. Most of the lawsuits at this point are from women who have suffered with diabetes as a result of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, but lawsuits over breast cancer, Alzheimer’s, liver damage and others may soon follow now that it is generally known how dangerous these drugs are.

According to statistics supplied by various law firms, there were 464 claims filed against Lipitor as of April 15, 2014, which increased to 703 by May 15, and then to 846 by June 16. As of mid-July 2014 over 959 claims have been filed for damages due to Lipitor alone. There are also many claims currently filed against Crestor, the next nearest competitor to Lipitor, and undoubtedly other similar drugs now sold under generic labels. These lawsuits now number well over 1,000, and are increasing at a rapid pace. Yet, this news is largely blacked out of the mainstream media.

700 Lipitor and Diabetes Lawsuit Claims Filed Against Pfizer

700 Lipitor and Diabetes Lawsuit Claims Filed Against Pfizer

Before its patent expired, Lipitor was the best-selling drug of all time. Lipitor, the drug that artificially lowers cholesterol, outsold almost all other drugs combined during the height of its run, before the patent ran out allowing generics to enter the market. The FDA did not issue warnings about the dangerous side effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs until after Lipitor’s patent expired.

The information here comes from an attorney, as attorneys across the nation see the economic opportunities now to sue Pfizer for damage done to millions of peoples’ health.

Veterans Kick The Prescription Pill Habit, Against Doctors’ Orders

Veterans Kick The Prescription Pill Habit, Against Doctors’ Orders

1 in 3 veterans polled say they are on 10 different medications.

While there is concern about overmedicating and self-medicating — using alcohol or drugs without a doctor’s approval — there are also some veterans who are trying to do the opposite: They’re kicking the drugs, against doctor’s orders.

Legal Child Kidnapping: Has the U.S. Become one of the Most Dangerous Places in the World for Children to Live?

Legal Child Kidnapping: Has the U.S. Become one of the Most Dangerous Places in the World for Children to Live?

The right to legal counsel, your Miranda rights, and the right to a speedy jury trial are American rights protected by our Constitution. But not in family court, where a single judge can decide whether or not you are a fit parent. Child Protection Services (CPS) has more power today than the police, sheriff, or FBI, as they can come into your home and remove your child without a search warrant or court order.

Someone who doesn’t like you, for any reason, can make a phone call and provide an anonymous “tip” with the result of you losing your children. Doctors you disagree with can call CPS and have your child removed from your home with no search warrant or court order, by simply reporting you to CPS. This is in fact happening all across America to thousands of families. It is time to put a stop to this.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!