By Dr. Mercola | mercola
There are currently two HPV vaccines on the market, but if there was any regard for sound scientific evidence, neither would be promoted as heavily as they are.
The first, Gardasil, was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006.
It is now recommended as a routine vaccination for girls and women between the ages of 9-26 in the US. On October 25, 2011, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also voted to recommend giving the HPV vaccine to males between the ages of 11 and 21. The second HPV vaccine, Cervarix, was licensed in 2009.
Were it to be discovered that the HPV vaccine, in fact, does not effectively prevent cancer, then young women (and now boys) are being exposed to clearly unacceptable health risks. And that’s precisely what a recent study has concluded…
Review of HPV Trials Conclude Effectiveness is Still Completely Unproven
Published online on September 24,1 a systematic review of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by a Canadian team shows that its effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or “cherry picking” data) but also completely unproven.
The summary states it quite clearly:
“We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We find that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).
Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odd with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.
For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.
Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).
We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.” [Emphasis mine]
It is truly mindboggling, and a true testament to the conflicts of interest manipulating public health guidelines, that the HPV vaccine has received such robust backing by health officials and legislators alike.
Back in 2007, just a year after Gardasil’s introduction to the market, Texas Governor Rick Perry went so far as signing an executive order mandating sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV. Not surprisingly, Perry’s former chief of staff was then a Merck lobbyist. Fortunately, the Legislature subsequently overturned his order.
It’s important to realize that the HPV vaccine only protects against a small select set of HPV viruses that can lead to cell abnormalities that in some instances can cause cervical cancer, if the abnormalities are not identified and treated. So in reality, it’s a misnomer to call it an anti-cancer vaccine. And it’s massively misleading, if not a deliberate deception, to claim it “will” save lives.
Today, six years after licensure, we STILL have absolutely no proof, not a shred of actual evidence, indicating that Gardasil actually prevents cancer in the long-term and/or reduces cervical cancer mortality. What we have instead, is tens of thousands of adverse event reports and 122 deaths, as of mid-August.
Media Reports on Merck Study, But Ignores Canadian Review
What makes this issue so infuriating is the complete lack of transparency about the potential risks of the vaccine. Just days after the online release of the featured Canadian review, which obliterates claims of both safety and effectiveness, the Wall Street Journal2 reported that:
“A new study of Merck and Co’s Gardasil cervical-cancer vaccine showed it was associated with fainting on the day of inoculation and skin infections two weeks afterward, but no link with more serious health problems was found. …The Gardasil study – led by the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, California – was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to provide an additional look at the vaccine’s safety in a large group of people. It was funded by Merck.
…More than 200 categories of illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, nervous-system disorders and medical conditions such as attention deficit disorder, back pain and other injuries were reviewed. In most cases the condition existed before the vaccine was given. There were 14 deaths recorded among girls and women in the study but the causes, including car accidents, congenital heart problems, suicide, lupus and pneumonia, weren’t linked to the vaccine…”
There’s not a single mention of the Canadian review. Likewise, WebMD’s HPV page,3 which was reviewed by Kimball Johnson, MD on August 13, 2012, plainly states:
“No serious HPV vaccine side effects have been found, although fainting spells following injection have been reported in teens and young adults. Sometimes soreness occurs at the injection site.”
This kind of blatant hiding of potential adverse effects leaves me speechless… Where is the journalistic integrity and accountability? WebMD is the second most visited health web site on the entire web (Mercola.com is fourth), so to say they have an influence over the health choices made by the average US citizen would be an understatement. The general belief is that it’s a first-rate, trustworthy source of “independent and objective” information about health, but as I reported two years ago, the site is in fact heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.
The HPV Vaccine Risks You’re Not Being Told About
As of August 13, 2012, VAERS has received 119 reports of death following HPV vaccination,4 as well as:
- 894 reports of disability
- 517 life-threatening adverse events
- 9,889 emergency room visits
- 2,781 hospitalizations
And WebMD had the gall to misinform the public by stating that there have been NO serious side effects associated with HPV vaccination! What parent would not consider even the remote potential for permanent disability and/or death worthy of at least a brief mention?
Recent data pulled by VAERS research analyst Janny Stokvis5 also show a dramatic and recent increase in abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer following HPV vaccination.
Bear in mind that cervical cancer typically does not strike until your late 40′s. According to 2005 -2009 data by the National Cancer Institute,6 the median age at diagnosis for cervical cancer in the US is 48. Only .2 percent of those diagnosed with cervical cancer were under the age 20, so it’s quite rare in this age group. It is estimated that 12,170 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2012.7 Because we’re dealing with relatively low numbers to begin with, it makes the rapid increases detailed below all the more worrisome – especially when you consider that the vaccine is supposed to REDUCE cancer incidence.
The following data is for girls ages 14 to 26.8 According to Stokvis, some of the reports of cervical abnormalities are occurring four to five years after HPV vaccination, so we’re just now starting to see some of the longer-term ramifications, since the vaccine has only been on the market for six years.
|March 2011||March 2012||% increase in 12 months|
|Abnormal pap smear||384||479||24.74 %|
|Cervical dysplasia||138||190||37.68 %|
|Cervical cancer||41||50||21.95 %|