- There is zero direct clinical evidence that Gardasil decreases cervical cancer rates. The FDA approval was made based off an effect on immunity to human papilloma virus.
- Western medicine does not have a great track record in treating cancer, let alone trying to prevent it decades down the line.
- There has never been a preventive cancer vaccine that has been seen to work in the past.
- HPV, against which the vaccine is directed, may simply be a “disease marker” in the same way that nicotine stained yellow fingers are a disease marker for lung cancer, while washing ones hands would have zero affect on lung cancer rates.
- If one accepts that HPV is necessary for cancer development, it would seem highly reckless without massive safety data to suppose a-priori that inoculation with 4 strains of HPV viral epitope would be inherently safe and might not itself promote cervical cancer while any evidence for this would take decades to be seen.
- Vaccine based immunity declines over time and there is no evidence that Gardasil induces a necessary long term immunity to HPV, while any decline in protection is magnified because the vaccine only protects against a portion of strains of HPV found to be associated with cervical cancer.
- The regulatory process had been compromised by direct financial ties between the vaccine manufacturer and regulators, not to mention the political pressures brought to bear by a well-funded lobbying effort.
- Even if the vaccine showed some degree of efficacy, a resulting decline in annual surveillance for early cervical cancer might still lead to a net increase in cervical cancer deaths
All this might just be some sort of billion dollar a year joke with Merck laughing all the way to the bank if Gardasil had proven to be an exceptionally safe vaccine. Unfortunately Gardasil has proven to be an exceptionally unsafe vaccine.
If we return now to the excellent, lengthy articleon this issue recently published at “Age of Autism” it begins with a series of case histories of young women who died subsequent to Gardasil inoculations. In light of these and similar developments 5 scientists from the CDC along with 7 from FDA recently published in JAMA an analysis of the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database. They came to the conclusion from their analysis that the number of deaths was no different than what would be expected from the coincidental background rate, “nothing to see here, move along.” Unfortunately, there are a number of glaring and obvious methodological flaws in their analysis.
One of the most obvious, that was quickly pointed out by other scientists in a Dec 2009 letter (Debold V, Hurwitz E. JAMA. 2009 Dec 23;302(24):2657) to JAMA, is that the wrong number was used as the denominator for determining the adverse event rate. That is to say the paper used as the denominator the number of Gardasil vaccinations sold in a given time period. This is invalid, however, for two reasons, first a significant portion, estimated as 1/3 of the sold vaccines were not used in the time period being analyzed. Secondly, and more dramatically, the relevant question is “what is the cumulative toxicity of repeated exposures from the series of Gardasil injections?” Indeed many parents found that their child was either not harmed or in retrospect only mildly harmed by the first and/or second shot. Therefore the true denominator needs to be decreased by 1/3 then again divided by three for the three shots in the Gardasil series. This would give an adverse event rate some 5 times greater than would be expected from the background rate.
Secondly the numerator is in error as approximately one third of the deaths attributed to Gardasil were not entered in the VAERS database for the time frame under analysis. In addition, the background rate is a comparison against a vaccinated population. So adverse events that are a class effect from vaccination in general would not be discernible. Or put another way, without comparison to an unvaccinated population one could only show that the vaccine is more or less safe than other vaccines. One other caveat I would add here is that the study made no differentiation on the background death rate as to cause of death, that is to say a young woman might be expected to die in a car accident, they don’t often die saying they are going out for a jog then dropping dead in the elevator.
Finally, the VAERS database massively under reports adverse events, especially serious adverse events. It does not take some sort of conspiracy of all physicians everywhere to understand why this is the case, simply put yourself in their shoes. A young woman’s grief stricken parents come in to see you and note that their daughter died two weeks after receiving a vaccination and tearfully ask, “Do you think the vaccination could have had anything to do with it?” What are you going to say? “Yes, that’s it, I took your perfectly healthy daughter, jabbed her with a needle and killed her, now if you’ll excuse me I am a bit tired and have my afternoon clinic to attend to, you will be bringing her baby sister in for her well baby check next week, right?” Of course not, as a defense mechanism few would likely ever even consciously entertain the possibility. This state of affairs is compounded in that in the past most vaccines were for serious and highly infectious communicable diseases so that even if a death or adverse event occurred one would not want to report it as “we don’t want to risk Public Health by having people stop their vaccinations.” While that line of thinking was always unscientific and condescending it holds even less water for vaccines for indications such as chicken pox, hepatitis B in infants, generally mild rotoviral diarrhea and “cervical cancer.” However, the meme to never criticize vaccines has taken hold while there is great emotional interest vested in not believing one could be harming or killing one’s patients through one’s injections.
Some interesting evidence to support this position may also be seen at Jenny’s Journey a website started by parents who lost their young daughter to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a debilitating progressive neurological disease which began shortly after her third Gardasil inoculation. As ALS is extremely rare the parents reported the event to the VAERS database. The CDC considered this to be an isolated and single event, unrelated to Gardasil vaccination, Jenny’s family was dissatisfied with the CDC’s unwillingness to look into the matter further and took matters into their own hands:
The CDC does not inspire confidence, so we conducted our own shoestring search to determine whether Jenny was alone. We created a website (jenjensfamilyblogspot.com). Although this website has only drawn 40,000 visitors, it has out-performed the federal government in finding girls ominously similar to Jenny (current score is: Jenny site 2; CDC’s VAERS: 0).
One does not need to be a statistician to see how unlikely it is that these two other girls are the only cases out there—or how frightening it is that we already know of three documented cases of girls (those two plus Jenny) who developed ALS within several months after their vaccinations. After all, if the odds of ALS in teenaged girls are 1 in 3 million and we found 3 in only 40,000, it is very possible that many other of the 6 million girls vaccinated have already developed severe neurological collapse, like Jenny.
If one has the time and inclination, I also highly recommend reading the whole three part,”A License to Kill” series on Age of Autism. If the medical community were honest and responsible stewards of health, much of the analysis in part two likely belongs in the New England Journal of medicine as opposed to a blog, Most competent epidemiologists would acknowledge that the analysis of death rates as calculated from pooled prospective clinical trials is generally considered a more accurate assessment than a population based approach as seen with the VAERS analysis. From this analysis of the pooled clinical trial data, the death rate per 10,000 in those given Gardasil is seen as 8.5 as opposed to an expected background death rate of 3.9/10,000. Extrapolated to a population of 4 million young women per year receiving the vaccination this equals 2,000 excess deaths per year. This compares with an estimated 4,000 deaths per year from cervical cancer. Though even the vaccines proponents acknowledge the vaccine would only have an effect in 70% of those 4,000, while as I have reasoned previously I fully expect, if this program continues, it will be seen tens of years and tens of billions of dollars down the line that this “cancer vaccine” will have no beneficial effect on cervical cancer deaths. Finally we are discussing death rates here and have not also added in the large number of people who are claiming to have been seriously injured by exposure to Gardasil.
It is one thing to discuss the statistics and methodology surrounding this issue. It is another to read the stories of parents and families affected by this vaccine. The Truth about Gardasil is a website started by two mothers whose daughters were severely injured by Gardasil. While it is difficult reading one may read in the memorial section, the “case histories” of those who lost their daughters, these stories are also accompanied by stories of the many serious and debilitating injuries believed to be caused by Gardasil.
As a physician one’s advice carries great weight and often even involves even life and death decisions. Now as one who frequently criticizes others as being entirely off base in many health related issues it must at least be entertained that one might fall victim oneself to those errors of reason which one claims are so frequent in others. Having said that, my strong recommendation to any patients or parents of patients is to unequivocally avoid Gardasil vaccination. And I have attempted to clearly present the reasoning and evidence for my position. To physicians, I would also say that we have a responsibility both out of necessary compassion and to arrive at a well-supported diagnosis to first and foremost listen to what our patients are telling us. Well our patients have organized an international support group to deal with the tragic health effects they are telling us were caused by Gardasil vaccination. That should tell us something.