Scientific Evidence Says Vaccinating With HPV Vaccine Is Ineffective, Dangerous For You And Your Daughters & Wrongly Promoted As “Anti-Cancer”
Child Health Safety, 23 March 2013
Thank God, الله أكبر, for researchers with courage who are prepared to tell the truth against the financial might of the drug industry, its manipulation and its political lobbying to market harmful ineffective drugs.
A peer reviewed well researched well referenced letter has been published in The Journal of Infectious Agents And Cancer telling the truth – yes – really – yes it has – honest to God, الله أكبر :
Letter to the Editor HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism Lucija Tomljenovic1*, Judy Wilyman2, Eva Vanamee3, Toni Bark4 and Christopher A Shaw1 1st February 2012 [.pdf version here].
The analysis and text is insightful and important. The letter would be valuable alone just for the papers and evidence it cites.
Using evidence from published peer reviewed literature and official sources, the letter rips into an editorial published 20 December 2012 in the Journal.
The letter reveals scientific and factual evidence that the data behind claims that HPV vaccines prevent cancers and save lives with no risk of serious side effects are “optimistic” and contrary to the evidence and largely are from “significant misinterpretation of available data” which is “presented to the public as factual evidence“.
That translates to:
drug industry and government health officials making up BS“
The authors use scientific and factual evidence to indicate how they say the editorial wrongly presented the complex scientific and factual issues as a simple battle between ‘unjustified “anti-HPV vaccine activism” vs alleged absolute science and indisputable evidence of HPV vaccine safety and efficacy. That translates into:
We apologise to our regular readers for the colloquial nature of the translations of the published peer reviewed text. This has been included so that “scientists” who publish the kind of BS concerned can more easily understand and distinguish the valid science and facts from their normal diet of drug industry sponsored BS junk science. Normal service will be resumed as soon as we can.
The vaccine safety profiles are based on highly flawed safety trial designs and are contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports linking the vaccines to serious side effects including death and permanent disabilities. That translates into:
The letter shows that the efforts to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated can be viewed validly as a cynical way for the drug industry to make money out of you and your daughters with hype and misrepresentation of the science and the facts. Reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no serious health risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.
The authors show:
They say it is not science but an optimistic assumption that HPV vaccination will reduce 70% of cervical cancers – seemingly based on exaggerated and invalid extrapolations which fail to take into account important basic scientific issues like:
Whether they can measure what they claim to;
Merck’s Gardasil vaccine:
This has meant “unwarranted confidence in the new HPV vaccines” has “led to the impression that there was no need to actually evaluate their effectiveness“.
In the USA Gardasil alone is associated with 61% of all serious adverse reactions including 63.8% of all deaths and 81.2% cases of permanent disability in females younger than 30 years of age.
The unusually high frequency and consistency of adverse reactions worldwide with nervous system-related disorders ranking the highest, strongly suggests the vaccine is the cause along with repeated reports of very similar cases of the same serious adverse reactions. Nervous system and autoimmune disorders are most frequently reported.
[ED: and what is the justification for the rush to approve a vaccine given to young girls when the majority of cervical cancers affect women over the age of 40-50? So why not make sure it is safe?
And by the time these girls are 40-50 years old there are likely to be effective treatments anyway.]