HPV Vaccine

A couple of posters expressed a desire to discuss the controversial HPV Vaccine in the Mammogram thread. As it is a huge subject with many facets it is deserving of its own thread.

Feel free to post your thoughts and experiences here.

From the outset I can say I knew nothing about this vaccine, so having been asked about it I have done the usual thing of looking at the available research, evidence and facts.

Only a cursory glance at this stage but that has been enough for me to be hugely sceptical of the vaccine. Enough so for me to answer AnnieS's question to me by saying that I think the whole thing is just another vaccine con.

AnnieS then asked:


I will now try to answer

Re: HPV Vaccine

As this is such a large topic I will state my reasons at a high level and then the discussion can "drill down" into specific areas if need be.

My reasons for being sceptical about the vaccine are:

1. There does not appear to be a sufficiently big problem to justify the need to generate and perpetuate a multi-billion dollar HPV vaccine business.

2. The vaccine has no evidence to demonstrate or prove that it can or does prevent Cervical Cancer, which is the vaccine's primary objective. There simply are no trials and research studies available to assess this. What it does instead, and where it's marketing has thus focussed on, is to prevent precancer lesions from forming at which the vaccine is very effective but I question the need for that.

3. The existing PAP screening process (smears) appears to be quite sufficient for detecting precancer lesions, the things that can later turn into cervical cancer. Treatment rates for precancers found are highly effective and many clear up of their own accord anyway.

4. The HPV Vaccine has many adverse side effects and some very serious ones have been reported. To what degree the vaccine causes harm is being debated and is the subject of much controversy. Nevertheless there are a number of useful facts are out there to be gleaned.


In summary then Big Pharma set out to create a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, the second most prevalent form of cancer in women after breast cancer. What they produced appears to have no evidence behind it in terms of that objective and the reason for that is that it takes on average 10 years for cervical cancer to appear after contracting the HPV virus in earlier life. There simply have not been any/enough studies over that kind of time period for anyone to be able to assess whether the vaccine does or does not prevent cervical cancer. The Cochrane Report on this makes this clear.

So what we have in reality is a multi-billion dollar HPV vaccine business which is actually now geared towards the prevention of precancer, but there was and is already a solution in place for that which is regular PAP smears.
The vaccine is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

I question therefore why we need a multi-billion dollar HPV Vaccine business other than of course, to generate billions of dollars for pharmaceutical companies!

I will repeat again, I knew nothing of this before I was asked about it and am open and willing to hear alternative views, preferably supported by hard data rather than emotional anecdotal evidence.

There are a lot of links I can put up for the various points made and am happy to do so.

I will first hear what specific areas others want to "drill down" into.

Cheers

Re: HPV Vaccine

HPV causes cervical cancer. The evidence for this is robust and cervical cancer hardly ever exists without HPV infection.

Although there have been decreased incidents in the UK older population, since the early 90s cervical cancer rates in 20 to 24 year olds have increased by 93% and by 47% in 25 to 34 year olds.


99.8% of cases are deemed preventable. 99.8% of cases are caused by a HPV infection. HPV screening can detect whether a woman is at risk of contracting cervical cancer. (source Cancer research UK).

You haven't said anything about the HPV screening programme - please comment. HPV screening is used to check whether lesions are in fact likely to be cancerous. Cancers without the presence of HPV are extremely rare.

If a vaccine can be developed to eradicate HPV infection then this would wipe out 99.8% of cervical cancers. Incidentally HPV can also cause cancer of the vagina, penis, anus and throat. Michael Douglas famously had throat cancer as a result of HPV infection.

If a vaccine can be developed to wipe out these devastating cancers then why would it be a con? The evidence needed is not that vaccination prevents cancer but that it prevents HPV infection. The evidence exists to say that it does prevent HPV infection. According to PHE HPV infections decreased by 86% in English women aged 16 -21 who were eligible for the vaccination as teenagers between 2010 & 2016.

So yes there is evidence that HPV vacs has reduced a cancer causing virus since the programme began. If you don't have HPV you don't need to rely on pap smears that tell you a cancer has already developed and needs treatment. It's a non brainer.

Re: HPV Vaccine

How Big Is The Problem

First let's look at the size of the problem for which a solution is being peddled.

Various sources report the numbers involved which are that

"About 2,900 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year in the UK, and the disease kills around 900 UK women every year."

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

"In the USA, an estimated 13,240 women in the United States will be diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer this year. Incidence rates for the disease dropped by 50% between 1975 and 2014 due to an increase in screening, which can find cervical changes before they turn cancerous."

In Australia the estimated number of new cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in 2018 is expected to be 930 women.

The estimated number of deaths from cervical cancer in 2018 is expected to be 258

https://cervical-cancer.canceraustra....au/statistics

Whilst any loss of life is tragic, we must remain objective and look at these numbers in perspective.

The current population of the UK is approx. 66 million of which females represent 33m

http://countrymeters.info/en/United_Kingdom_(UK)


Thus this year it is expected that just 900 out of 33 million women will die of cervical cancer. That in percentage terms is 0.0027% of the population. It's a tiny number.


The USA has a population of 330 million of which females make up about 167m. From the above it is expected that 13,240 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, not die of it, just diagnosed with it. 13,240 out of 167m equates to just 0.0079%. Again a tiny tiny number.


The numbers are as tiny as they are because of the advent of pap (smear) screening which has proven highly effective at detecting the presence of the HPV virus.


I ask again, why is there a need for a colossal multi-billion dollar HPV Vaccine industry when such tiny numbers are involved? In the UK a woman has about a 1 in 11,379 chance of being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Those are extremely good odds for women. Yet what we have is a situation where they want all 11,379 women to have the HPV Vaccine in order that we can prevent that ONE woman from getting cervical cancer. Again staying unemotional that seems ludicrous especially when the vaccine in question is surrounded in controversy about some incredibly horrific life-changing side effects and a number of deaths.

Cochrane have of course conducted a study on this HPV vaccine. It can be read here:

http://www.cochrane.org/CD009069/GYN...changes-cervix

It states that the vaccine reduces the risk of cervical precancer for 15 to 25 yr olds, from 164 women to just 2 women in every 10,000. That's a sizable reduction, 164 down to just 2 but the problem in the first instance wasn't huge. Only 164 cases of precancer in every 10,000 is not a lot. It's 1.64%.

The numbers are similar for other age groups and together we can summarise that the rate of women getting precancer conditions across the age groups is somewhere around 1%-3%.

So, that small size of the problem established, let's now look at how effective the existing solution is for picking up these precancers. That existing solution is PAP screening (smears).


Effectiveness Of PAP Screening

Here's what the Canadian Cancer Society has to say:

http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-infor...ons/?region=on

"An abnormal Pap test result is often the first sign that some cells in the cervix are abnormal. This is why it is important to have regular Pap tests.

Most women treated for precancerous conditions of the cervix have an excellent outcome and won’t develop cervical cancer.

Mild changes to the cervix, such as LSIL, often return to normal on their own without any treatment."

Then there is this from the NCBI itself (National Centre for Biotechnology Information)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889021/

"HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI). Women are at highest risk of acquiring HPV when they initiate their sexual life. Peak prevalence of infection is observed between 20 and 25 years and the prevalence comes down drastically after 30 years of age since most of the infected women clear the infection due to natural immunity. More than 90 percent of the immune-competent women have been found to clear the HPV 16 infection within 5 years without any treatment"


So we are finding that the existing solution of PAP screening identifies HPV precancer and that treatments have an excellent outcome and in many cases things clear up of their own accord. Comes down to how well a woman looks after her immune system.

PAP screening has proven very successful. There are a number of studies such as this, again from the NCBI :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681632/

"The available evidence supports the conclusion that cervical screening does offer protective benefits and is associated with a reduction in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and cervical cancer mortality."


I remain confused as to why, when we have an effective PAP screening solution, we suddenly need a multi-billion dollar HPV vaccine industry to provide another solution? Except of course to generate $billions for pharmaceutical companies.

It is possible I have missed something or mis-interpreted the numbers somewhere. Happy to be corrected but at this stage the entire HPV vaccine industry just seems unnecessary. It has no proof that it reduces cervical cancer or related mortality rates and it's only known benefit is to prevent HPV precancers but we have seen that precancers are not a huge problem because they can be picked up by PAP smears and treated with excellent outcomes or just left to heal with natural immunity.

Add to this the whole issue of the serious harms some are claiming the vaccine does and the argument for perpetuating the vaccine's rollout look increasingly weak.

We shall, no doubt, come to the evidence regarding those serious adverse side effects in due course later in this thread.

Re: HPV Vaccine

in the UK there were 3126 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in 2015. The same year there were 854 deaths from the disease. Statistics would show that 99.8% of those 854 dead women should have been able to prevent ever contracting cancer. Of the 3126 only 63% were expected to survive for ten years or more.

The cost of vaccinating women once rather than pap smearing them every so many years will more than compensate. A vaccine costs a lot less than a colposcopy and lab costs. Once the HPV epidemic is eradicated women won't have to go through the indignity of nasty smear tests every two to five years.

Re: HPV Vaccine

Currently the women who have cleared the infection still have cervical screens every two to five years. All women are screened throughout their lives. if they have been previously vaccinated for HPV they shouldn't need them. However, my understanding is that any woman who has ever had HPV can still develop cervical cancer. It doesn't usually happen at the time of infection but can be decades later. It will be interesting to see whether we see a drop in cases of cervical cancer in the 20 to 24 age group as the girls currently being vaccinated mature.

It's not like the flu vaccine which changes every year, but a one off vaccine like polio or MMR. Surely doctors have better things to do than take cervical smears from unhappy women.

Re: HPV Vaccine

And in 2015 there were 65 million people in the UK, so figure on 35 million of those being female and therefore this 854 deaths represents 0.002% of the female population.
That's not even 1/100th of a percent !!

So you're suggesting that 99.998% of the female population, who are never going to contract cervical cancer should have this vaccine anyway, just for the hell of it, and in doing so, spin the Wheel Of Disfortune and risk getting some of the horribly serious adverse side effects that have been experienced which include seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

According to the Washington Times:

"The adverse reaction reports detail 26 new deaths reported between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011 as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...dasil-victims/

However the list of serious adverse reaction reports go well beyond this. There ARE clearly significant issues with the safety of this vaccine imo.

Why on earth would anyone risk that when only 0.002% of the female population are going to die from cervical cancer?
Each woman only has a 1 in 41,000 chance of dying from cervical cancer.

Surely the vaccine is trying to solve a problem that isn't huge and in doing so is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the nut.

Why implement something that puts EVERY female at risk just to prevent a tiny number from dying ?

Why not instead come up with something that improves the mortality rate of the tiny number that would otherwise die? Surely that would make more sense . . . . except that of course that's not going to generate $billions for big pharmaceutical companies.

Oh and on that subject . . .

So How Big Is The HPV Vaccine Business?

Actually it is huge. Back in 2010 Gardasil had revenues of $988 million and sales were expected to reach $1.25 billion by 2015.

According to this article:

(https://www.globalresearch.ca/big-ph...market/5503945)

"Gardasil also brought in $1.7 billion in profits for Merck."

Sales have dropped off somewhat since all of the controversy over its alleged harmful side effects. Nevertheless Gardasil is now rolling out across China.

Let's be clear though, this is a huge multi-billion dollar industry (all HPV vaccines considered) and yet, thus far, we have no studies or evidence that the HPV Vaccines prevent cervical cancer or reduce mortality rates. That's a pretty crazy situation to find ourselves in, yet no surprise whatsoever!

Re: HPV Vaccine

Grenfell caused 72 unnecessary deaths. How are preventable cancer deaths any less shocking? 854 unnecessary deaths is a significant number. Thousands of women are living with the shadow of cancer having been diagnosed with and treated for cervical cancer.

However, I take on board your points on the reported side effects. There is however no hard evidence to link the vaccine to the conditions reported. It's all anecdotal. The main concern is around pregnancy and it's not advised that the vaccine is administered close to conception or during pregnancy until further research is carried out. It's not considered efficacious for older women and is only being given to adolescents.

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/is-t...the-thumbs-up/

Re: HPV Vaccine

Not true. I shall explain.

I've highlighted before in Flu Jab related threads how the US government has passed laws which stop any US citizen from being able to sue a vaccine manufacturer even if that manufacturer harms their health. It's a shocking and telling law.

In place of being able to sue the manufacturers of these vaccines, for which we are used as guinea pigs, there exists the VICP. That is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This is essentially a government dept which assesses claims of people who have been harmed by vaccines and which pays out huge sums in compensation as a result.

You can bet that it is very hard to get such a claim through and damages awarded. This is the set of steps you have to go through to get a claim awarded:

(from https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html)

1. An individual files a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

2. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services medical staff reviews the petition, determines if it meets the medical criteria for compensation and makes a preliminary recommendation.

3. The U.S. Department of Justice develops a report that includes the medical recommendation and legal analysis and submits it to the Court.

4. The report is presented to a court-appointed special master, who decides whether the petitioner should be compensated, often after holding a hearing in which both parties can present evidence. If compensation is awarded, the special master determines the amount and type of compensation.

5. The Court orders the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to award compensation. Even if the petition is dismissed, if certain requirements are met, the Court may order the Department to pay attorneys' fees and costs

This is complex and serious stuff but it is the only way those harmed by vaccines can complain and seek redress.

The VICP is therefore a key indicator of which vaccines ARE in fact causing harm because you can be absolutely sure that the VICP isn't going to pay out sums of money to people unless there IS real harm.

What then is the situation with the VICP regarding the HPV Vaccines?

Well, thus far the VICP has awarded a staggering $5,877,710 dollars to 49 victims in claims made against HPV vaccines

That is significant. It means people put in their claims, went through all those hoops and that set of complex processes and the result was that their claims were upheld and near $6m was paid out.

That is evidence that can not be ignored.

These problems were also mentioned in the sanevax website here:

http://sanevax.org/vaccine-injury-co...l-settlements/

"From May 16 to August 16, 2013, five Gardasil cases were awarded settlements under Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

According to a report from the Department of Justice, dated 5 Sept 2013, during the last quarter final decisions were made on 120 injury claims made under the vaccine injury compensation program

Of these 120:

- 32 were reviewed by the special masters and dismissed
- HHS conceded 9 cases and offered settlements (amounts undisclosed)
- 79 cases went to hearings and were awarded settlements

Fifty of the 79 cases that went to hearings involved flu vaccines. Five involved adverse reactions after the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Considering how long flu vaccines have been on the market versus the few years Gardasil
has been administered, this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg"


In addition to the above there is another key body from which data can be gathered . That is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS for short.

VAERS maintains records on all adverse reactions to vaccines that are reported. The website below looked at the HPV vaccine reports in this database:

http://drnevillewilson.com/2016/01/1...fety-concerns/

It states:

"As of 13 May 2013 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 29,686 reports of adverse events following HPV vaccination, including 136 reports of death, as well as 922 reports of disability and 550 life threatening adverse events."

The Sanevax website also looked at the VAERS data and produced this chart:



It took me a while to get my head around what this chart is saying but I think I finally sussed it.
It shows the results of the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reports associated with the various categories at the bottom of the chart. In each case the blue bar represents the % of adverse reports received that were attributable to ALL 13 vaccines that the young generation are generally given and the bar next to it is the % of reports attributable solely to the HPV vaccine.

So in the category "Did not recover" there's almost a 50/50 % split between adverse reactions caused by the HPV Vaccine and all the other 13 vaccines. That's NOT a good result for the HPV vaccine. It means that one vaccine, the HPV vaccine, generates the same amount of adverse reports as all the other 13 vaccines put together, for that category.

The Abortion, Chlamydia and infertility categories are even worse with the vast majority of adverse reaction reports
coming from the HPV vaccine alone.

As the article then explains:

"Medical practitioners need to be aware of the injuries which are being compensated under the VICP after HPV vaccine administration and watch for them. The possibility of vaccine injury is real – particularly with HPV vaccines.

Parents need to know adverse event reports after HPV vaccines represent an unusually high percentage of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database. Any new medical condition after HPV vaccination should be closely watched. The possibility of it being vaccine-related is very real."


All the above is pretty damning evidence that the vaccines have very significant risk associated with them. Millions of dollars have already been paid out in compensation to people whose health has been damaged by the vaccines. There will likely be many more people who did not manage to get their claims through the system.

Given the tiny chance that a female might contract the HPV virus and the tiny chance that this will lead to cervical cancer, I can not see the point in risking the serious adverse reactions of these vaccines.

Re: HPV Vaccine

US case histories are not facts. We all know what their legal system is like.

Do you have any evidence which gives scientific proof that the side effects mentioned have been linked to the vaccinations? It would also be good to know whether any cases have won compensation in British courts.

Every single vaccination has court cases because there is always a risk of severe side effects in some individuals. That's also the case with medication. Is there a single medicine that doesn't have a risk factor? Should you let someone die of infection rather than administer antibiotics?