Should HPV vaccine be given to boys?

6 Comments
Sort by
Join the discussion...

5 Posts

SteveH  ·  10 Jul 2017

John Williams, unfortunately your knowledge of HPV vaccines is out of date. Merck have been marketing Gardasil 9 (intended or expected to protect against 9 HPV strains) since 2014. It is already acvailable in the UK. But there are at least 40 HPV strains currently known to be asociated with cancers and many scientists around the world expect the other strains to substitute those that might be reduced by the current vaccines.  Do girls that had Cervarix and Gardasil now need to increase their neurotoxic aluminium overload with Gardasil 9, or do they wait until Gardasil 40 is available?

Both GSK and Merck strongly recommend that vaccinated women still attend Pap screening. Maybe not pleasant but t least it is proven to be safe and effective.  

 

5 Posts

SteveH  ·  07 Jul 2017

John Williams, I do not misquote and can provide you with a huge amount of truthful evidence about this vaccine.

My daughter was severely disabled by this vaccine over 6 years ago and she has been bed-bound and house-bound for most of that time. We were also told that the vaccine is safe and effective and would prevent our daughter getting cancer and possible death. Following the obvious vaccine injury, I have researched this vaccine extensively and now have a huge knowledge base built on vaccine manufacturers own information, freedom of information act (FOIA) requests, questions raised in parliament, analysis of the government statistics from England (Office of National Statistics) and Scotland (ISD Scotand, Information Services Division) and evidence from the Upsala Monitoring Centre for global adverse drug reaction reports - it is the World Health Organisation’s Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring. The website address is www.vigiaccess.org

I am not familiar with Ireland’s HPRA but I would expect it to reflect the opinion of the UK’s MHRA. Publicly we are told by the MHRA “No serious adverse risks have been identified with HPV vaccines in the UK”, see item 36 in attached JCVI minutes:  https://app.box.com/s/600veu6zr6s3gjvx8mkt/file/27415150636

The very same MHRA when asked by FOIA requests will tell you that 21,904 adverse reactions have been reported in 8,731 Yellow Card reports, including 6 with fatal outcome by January 2017. They also provided 227 pages of ‘Line Listing of Serious Adverse reports’ in September 2016 on the FOIA website at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/359503/response/883152/attach/3/HPV%20serious%20line%20listing.pdf

The same MHRA also provided the recent response to questions in the UK parliament http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-04-13/70973 it quites 3,038serious adverse reports.

 

ts do not confirm causation by the vaccine and that many are coincidental. However, they also acknowledge that only 1-2% of adverse events and c.10% of serious adverse events are reported. I can accept that some will be a coincidence but there is also huge under-reporting.

You probably believe the MHRA’s public statement. I am in personal contact with over 450 families in the UK who are certain that their daughter’s severe disability was caused by the vaccine. 27%, including myself, have reported that the onset of their illness was within 24 hours of vaccination, some within minutes or hours. Some even had multiple adverse reactions with each dose because doctors had re-assured them that their illness was not caused by the vaccine because it is safe and effective.

I have studied GSK’s ‘Scientific Discussion’ for Cervarix on the European Medicines Agency web site:   http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Scientific_Discussion/human/000721/WC500024636.pdf

During the clinical trials recipients were health checked before inclusion. There were 2,884 SAE/100,000 recipients with the vaccine and 3,063 with the control. BUT the control was HAV 360 vaccine, HAV 720 vaccine and ‘Aluminium adjuvant’. There were no placebo’s used. Deaths were included but not reported separately. The number of patients quoted in the trials was the number having at least 1 dose of vaccine but when introduced patients were required to have 3 cumulative doses.

Merck clinical trials were also done without placebo comparison. You can find dertails in their ‘Highlights of Prescribinh Information’ eg: https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil_9/gardasil_9_pi.pdf

For Gardasil 4 the Control was AAHS (Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate) adjuvant, For Gardasil 9 the control was Gardasil 4. In each of the clinical trials there were 2,300 – 2,500 SAE/100,000 recipients. This is HUGE!. In all of the clinical trials with GARDASIL 9, subjects were evaluated for new medical conditions potentially indicative of a systemic autoimmune disorder. In total, 2.4% (321/13,234) of GARDASIL 9 recipients and 3.3% (240/7,378) of GARDASIL recipients reported new medical conditions potentially indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders.

Both GSK and Merck NEVER state that their vaccines WILL prevent cancer – they always state ‘expected to’ or ‘intended to’

If you search the England government ONS website or Scotland’s ISD websites of national statistics you will find that cases of cervical cancer in the 20-24 age group have increased yet they claim 90% vaccination coverage including a highly successful catch-up campaign for girls up to 18 years of age in 2008. This is despite NHS Scotland’s delight at a reduction by 90% of HPV 16 & 18 strains post vaccination. Do they not realise other HPV strains, possibly more dangerous, can take their place?

I can also provide you with a list of at least 16 vaccines which were licensed because they were safe and effective BUT later withdrawn due to safety issues eg. caused meningitis, Lyme disease, contaminated, etc.

You have every right to believe your own sources of information but please do your investigations thoroughly and effectively before accusing others or before advising patients to use an unsafe, ineffective vaccine. 

 

989 Posts

John Williams  ·  06 Jul 2017

Steve Hinks. You are mis-quoting all your sources. For instance the following is an extract from the WHO website:

"Two HPV vaccines are now being marketed in many countries throughout the world - a bivalent and a quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines are highly efficacious in preventing infection with virus types 16 and 18, which are together responsible for approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases globally. The vaccines are also highly efficacious in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by these virus types. The quadrivalent vaccine is also highly efficacious in preventing anogenital warts, a common genital disease which is virtually always caused by infection with HPV types 6 and 11. Data from clinical trials and initial post-marketing surveillance conducted in several continents show both vaccines to be safe"

In case you don't understand what efficacious is, it means effective and does what the Health Products Regulatory Authority has licensed it for. Stop the scare mongering and the fake news.

 

5 Posts

SteveH  ·  06 Jul 2017

The Scottish government claims that "there has been a 90% reduction in HPV since the vaccines were introduced in 2008". WRONG - there 'claim' should read that there has been a reduction in HPV strains 16 & 18 but what about all of the other strains that are taking their place?

Their own cervical cancer stats on the ISD webpage show a 4 FOLD INCREASE in cervical cancers for the 20-24 age group in the last 3 years reports (2012-2014). With a catch-up programme in 2008 for girls up to 18 which was completed by 2009 most of the girls in this age group by 2014  should have been vaccinated.

Furthermore the 'all-age' stats. throughout the 1990's was rapidly reducing as Pap screening approached 80% and, if that improvement had continued, cervical cancer could have been eliminated by by 2019. Instead they switched the priority to vaccination, screening has come down and cancer rates have increased! 

Maybe Dr Ann Hogan and Minister for Health, Simon Harris should educate themselves and look at their own Pap screening and cancer rates.   

 

5 Posts

SteveH  ·  06 Jul 2017

There is a legal requirement for health professionals to provide INFORMED consent. How can they do this when they themselves are NOT informed?

I believe there is ZERO evidence that Cervarix and Gardasil will ever prevent a single case of cancer. The manufacturers, GSK and Merck, only ever state they are 'intended to' or 'expected to'. 

Cervarix is expected to prevent 2 strains of HPV, Gardasil 4 strains and Gardasil9 9 strains but there are over 170 strains of HPV with at least 40 involved in cancers but some scientists expect other strains, potentially more lethal, to take the place of those which might be prevented by the vaccines. See Sonja Fischer peer-reviewed article 'Shift in prevalence of HPV strains post vaccination'. 

The World Health Organisation has a database of adverse drug reports at vigiaccess.org. There are over 272,000 adverse reactions in over 76,000 reports of adverse events with this vaccine, including 378 deaths, WHO also acknowledges only 10% get reported.

The only persons who benefit from this vaccine are the profit takers.

 

989 Posts

John Williams  ·  05 Jul 2017

Dr Hogan is right about the unnecessary delay in giving it to boys when the facts are clear. I presume the HSE are getting this assessment to give themselves cover when the usual suspects in the anti-vacc and alternative health brigade start their usual propaganda campaign against it. Ann Hogan is also right in calling for the school authorities to educate their pupils on the facts of HPV and the vaccine to protect themselves.

 
Write a comment...