August | 2013 | Gaia-Health.link

Flu Vaccines Can Make Influenza Worse: Study

A universal flu vaccine sounds like a good idea, especially if you’re on the fence about vaccinations. There would, at least, be fewer injections. However, one researcher has shown that a flu vaccine can result in far more virulent infection when exposed to a similar strain of flu virus—and another has found out why & also demonstrated that the risk of worse infection applies to upcoming universal flu vaccines.

Pig with Gas Mask, by Guilherme Tavares (Hypodermic added)

by Heidi Stevenson

As documented by a new study, getting a flu vaccination can result in coming down with a more virulent influenza. This phenomenon was noted during the swine flu pandemic-that-wasn’t a couple of years ago, but pooh-poohed by skeptics.

In the study^[1] published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, pigs were given a universal flu vaccine of the type currently under development. They developed a more virulent form of influenza that readily turned into pneumonia when exposed to a strain similar to the variety used in the vaccine.

This supports the work of Dr. Danuta Skowronski, of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, who investigated the data related to the 2009 swine flu “pandemic”. She noted that people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in the fall of 2008 were more likely to fall ill when the “pandemic” swine flu came around the following spring and summer. Skeptics, of course, denied her findings. Regarding Skowronski’s research, she stated to The Canadian Press^[2]:

I think … what they’re showing is a biological mechanism that warrants further evaluation in terms of its relevance to the use of seasonal vaccines in humans and what that may mean for the next pandemic threat. …

… It’s concerning, obviously, because if this is the mechanism, then it means there needs to be a lot more … attention paid to these universal vaccine candidates that are targeting that stalk antibody.

The “stalk antibody” refers to the part of a virus that the developers of a “universal” vaccine hope to target. Here’s what Dr. Skowronski is referring to:

Hemagglutinin

The old way of making flu vaccines requires that flu viruses be grown in a medium, generally eggs. This process is time consuming and expensive. Now, recombinant DNA—that is, genetic engineering—is used. Bacteria are engineered to grow flu antigens—in some cases, adjuvants, or combinations of the two.

The antigens that are grown in bacteria are similar to bits of the hemagglutinin (HA) of a flu virus. This HA grown by bacteria is processed to become the antigen in a flu virus vaccine.

There are a limited number of HA types – 17 – and most of them do not infect humans. However, there are far more than 17 types of influenza viruses. Ten possible subtypes, called neuraminadases (NAs) can be associated with each HA type. These combinations determine the different types of flu, which are labeled as H-number-N-number.

H refers to HA , N refers to NA, and the numbers refer to the particular type of each. There are 17 types of HA and 10 types of NA, and each combination defines a particular type of influenza. Swine flu is the familiar H1N1, and H5N1 is a type of bird flu that’s been known to infect humans.

Here’s a summary:

Bacteria are genetically engineered to grow flu virus antigens that duplicate bits of HAs.
Each type of influenza is identified by a combination of one of 17 types of HA and one of 10 types of NA.
Thus, flu types are named according to the HA/NA combination, such as H5N1 or H7N9.

Universal Flu Vaccine

Hemagglutinin, that part of a virus that sticks out and becomes the target of antibodies, can be thought of as shaped like a lollipop, so that there’s a stem and a head. The entire lollipop-shaped HA is classified as one of the 17 types. Current flu recombinant DNA vaccines target molecules of the head, making them effective only for a single HxNx variety. That is, a vaccine against H1N1 is effective only against type H1N1 flu, but cannot protect against H1N2 flu.

The goal of universal flu vaccine development is to target the stem. The idea is that targeting the stem would create antibodies to all flus of a single HA type. Thus, the researchers believe that a “universal” flu vaccine against type H1 hemagglutinin would be effective against all H1 type flus, not just a single type. Likewise, a “universal” flu vaccine against type H2 would protect against all H2 type flus, and so forth.

Confirmation

The study produced by Dr. Vincent and her team demonstrated that pigs vaccinated against H1N2 type flu suffered an “enhanced pneumonia and disease” on being infected with H1N1 flu. Their investigation showed that antibodies created by the vaccine formed against the stem area of HA, not the head.^[3]

Note that both the HA types involved in the pig experiment were H1. They were vaccinated against the H1N2 type of flu, but infected with the H1N1 type. The vaccine against H1N2 caused some of the antibodies to respond to the stem of the HA, not just the head, resulting in cross reactivity. This resulted in a reaction with the lungs of pigs when infected with H1N1 type flu, resulting in a more virulent flu and pneumonia. The authors stated:

These findings should be considered during the evaluation of universal influenza [of a certain type].

This appears to confirm Dr. Skowronski’s observations that people who had been vaccinated against one flu type were at risk for a more virulent infection by a different, but similar one. It should also, according to Dr. Vincent and her co-researchers, be cause for concern in the development of universal flu vaccines that utilize this approach.

Precautionary Principle?

As ever, what we’re seeing in the mad rush to develop new influenza vaccines is an utter lack of concern for the precautionary principle. Where there’s money to be made in the massive antigen quantities that recombinant DNA can produce, the approach is to go full-steam ahead. Simply make claims that the vaccines are fully tested for effectiveness and safety. Whether it’s true is not a concern—only whether they can sell the product.

When risks show up, as they did when Dr. Skowronski found that previous vaccination resulted in more severe cases of swine flu, they’re denied and ignored.

What do you suppose will happen now that a scientific study has clearly documented that influenza vaccination can result in significantly worse cases of flu if the vaccine strain is similar to the infectious strain? You can be fairly sure that nothing will slow these insane pharmaceutical firms and their mad scientists. After all, the major news media haven’t touched this story.

This information about the serious risk inherent in the development of a universal flu vaccine is already being suppressed.

Big Pharma and their regulatory toadies will see to it that nothing gets in the way of universal flu vaccines—and the propaganda to be vaccinated will be ratcheted up to spread lies about how your health and that of everyone around you is dependent on getting your flu vaccine.

You may find this article on new recombinant DNA technology used in vaccines, but with a focus on its use in adjuvants: New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

Sources:

Vaccine-Induced Anti-HA2 Antibodies Promote Virus Fusion and Enhance Influenza Virus Respiratory Disease; Science Translational Medicine; Surender Khurana, Crystal L. Loving, Jody Manischewitz, Lisa R. King, Phillip C. Gauger, Jamie Henningson, Amy L. Vincent, and Hana Golding; DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006366.
Study raises red flag for universal flu vaccine; The Canadian Press; Helen Branswell; 28 August 2013.
Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development. Understanding Evolution, February 2013.

Gardasil Provides No Benefit: CDC Study

The recent Gardasil study by the CDC claims that the vaccine has significantly reduced HPV infections. The authors’ claim bears little resemblance to the study’s results. Here’s an analysis demonstrating that, in reality, no conclusions can be drawn—that the study’s results are inconsistent, based on non-matched samples, and mixed the groups being compared.

Junked Science

by Heidi Stevenson

Recently, the mainstream news media was worked up about a study claiming that Gardasil has proven to be effective in preventing HPV (humanpapillomavirus) infections, and thereby, the implication that it will also prevent cervical cancer. However, careful perusal of the study shows something entirely different—that the vaccine provides no discernible benefit.

Lest there be any doubt about the study’s claim, the title is “Reduction in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence Among Young Women Following HPV Vaccine Introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003–2010″. Clearly, the point the authors wanted to get across is that Gardasil, the HPV vaccine in question, works.

It sounds outrageous to claim that a study with that title doesn’t live up to its promise. However, the authors focused the spotlight on only a small portion of their results to give that impression. When placed into proper perspective, the only legitimate conclusion to be be drawn is that Gardasil does not provide any benefit.

The study, financed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) relied on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), an ongoing CDC group of studies “to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States.” The researchers of this study looked at data from two sampling periods, 2003-2006, the “pre-vaccine era”, and 2007-2010, the “post-vaccine” era, because vaccinations were started in 2007 (with a few exceptions at the end of 2006).

The vaccine is designed to prevent infections of four types of HPV: types 6 and 11, which cause genital warts, and types 16 and 18, which can cause cervical cancer—though in the vast majority of cases, they are naturally healed by the body and cause no known problems.

The result that the authors and news media have heavily promoted is that the 14-19 year old age range saw a reduction between the two time periods of 11.5% to 5.1% in types 16 and 18 HPV infections. That does sound significant. It seems to indicate that Gardasil has reduced the incidence of infection by 56 percent, a highly significant amount.

Different Ages, Different Results

However, by their own estimation, the sample size is too small to make any real conclusions. Yet, that’s precisely what they did, as their title clearly demonstrates! But the truth is significantly worse than that little slip. The vaccine was not given only to 14-19 years olds, it was also given to young women up through age 26. So what were the results in the age ranges of 20-24 and 25-29?

Ages 20-24 saw an infection rate increase from 18.5% to 19.9%—1.08 times more infections!

Ages 25-29 saw an infection rate increase from 11.8% to 13.1%—1.11 times more infections!

If the Gardasil vaccine had worked as claimed, wouldn’t there have been an infection reduction in those two age groups, too? Though they weren’t vaccinated as frequently, many young women did get it. Therefore, if there’s a reduction in HPV infections that can be attributed to the vaccine in 14-19 year olds, then surely there would be a reduction in ages 20-29, albeit smaller since fewer young women were vaccinated than teens. Instead, there was an increase!

Mixing Ages

No information was provided about how long after vaccinations the interviews and examinations were done. It appears that there was no consistency, that some may have been interviewed 6 months after vaccination, while others could have been interviewed 3 or 4 years later. For example, a girl might have been vaccinated in early 2007 at age 16, but not interviewed until she was 20 in 2010. That would put her in a different age range.

A large percentage of the girls who were in the 14-19 age group when vaccinated would have been in the 20-24 age range when questioned by NHANES. So that would also serve to decrease the percentage of 20-24 year olds infected with types 16 & 18 HPV—certainly not result in the increase this study shows. The same logic can be used for the next age range, 25-29.

Therefore, the groups are not discretely separated, as the authors would seem to imply.

Oversampled Group

Another anomaly could explain the discrepancy between the results of girls aged 14-19 and those 20-29. The sampling done between 2007 and 2010 was different for girls aged 14-19. According to the study:

To increase the precision of estimates, NHANES oversampled certain subdomains. In NHANES 1999–2006, Mexican Americans, blacks, low income white and others, and adolescents aged 12–19 years were oversampled. In 2007–2010, Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and low income white and others were oversampled. Because adolescents were not oversampled in 2007–2010, there was a reduced number of individuals aged 14–19 years.

In the 2007-2010 timeframe, Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks, and low income people were oversampled … except among adolescents! In other words, the groups were not similar; they were intentionally made dissimilar. Did that make a difference? Perhaps—but we do not know. What we do know is that the researchers may have been comparing apples with oranges in teenaged girls between the two timespans.

Researchers’ Conflict of Interest

So why didn’t the authors tell the whole story? That seems quite obvious. They’re all CDC employees. The CDC has been promoting Gardasil very heavily. They not only financed the study, their own employees produced it. In an agency that was headed by Julie Gerberding, who left to take a highly lucrative position as vice president of Merck’s vaccine division, it isn’t difficult to see that no one who does anything counter to the prevailing vaccines-for-everything-for-everyone is likely to have a future with the CDC. As one research fellow with the agency stated on GlassDoor.ca:

Whether you become an FTE (full time employee) depends exclusively on politics, not on your hard-work and accomplishments.

The study that promotes the claim that Gardasil has reduced HPV infections has done nothing of the sort. In fact, it may provide better evidence for a contention that it has increased infection rates. After all, only one of the three age groups involved actually appeared to have a reduced rate of HPV infections. Let me clarify that I am not making that claim, as I do not believe that this study comes close to demonstrating any valid conclusions. However, such a claim would hold every bit as much validity as what the authors concluded.

Summary

There are four highly significant concerns with the results of this study:

The authors acknowledged that the sample size was inadequate.
The results were anomalous. All of the three age groups, 14-19, 20-24, and 25-29, should have had similar results. That is, they should all have shown an increase or decrease in infection rates. Yet they most assuredly did not.
The groups were not distinct from each other, so that age ranges between vaccination and examination could result in a subject starting out in one age range, but being examined after entering the next age range.
The 14-19 age group was not oversampled for the 2007-2010 timespan, which means that group is not homologous with the 14-19 2003-2006 group.

The authors are all employed by the CDC, which financed the study and actively promotes the Gardasil vaccine. The fact that they have presented the results in a highly biased manner is clear. It would appear that the study was spun to give the impression of a certain result, with little concern for whether the data actually supports it. It wouldn’t be out of line to label the study as pseudo science or junk science.

Here is a copy of the results presented by the study:

Source:

Reduction in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence Among Young Women Following HPV Vaccine Introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003–2010. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. Lauri E. Markowitz, Susan Hariri, Carol Lin, Eileen F. Dunne, Martin Steinau, Geraldine McQuillan, and Elizabeth R. Unger. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jit192.

Vaccine Cause & Effect Simplification Hides Adverse Effects

As far too many parents know, adverse events from vaccines are routinely hidden away behind glib words, like “coincidence”. Even so, more people are becoming aware, which is the likely reason that the WHO limits vaccine adverse event causation determinations to yes or no. This oversimplification is a means of hiding adverse effects.

Dr. King’s Thoughts on AEFI (adverse event following inoculation) classification issues for serious adverse events (SAEs) following vaccine inoculation focused on the “new” vaccination program case (e.g., the “new” pentavalent vaccine being “introduced” into Asia):

In general, the designation of an infant’s death following shortly after an inoculation session as “SIDS” is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control immune-system aberrations.

Thus, in many cases, the “SIDS” label is misused to hide “death by vaccination” especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions, body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.

As to the true cost-benefit, since only a small percentage of AEFIs are reported to VAERS, the VAERS-reported deaths underestimate the vaccination-associated deaths by a factor of 10 to 100+.

Moreover, in those instances where the vaccine contains a live-virus component, whether the virus is intended to be present or is present as a contaminant, the inoculation infects the inoculee—leading to a greatly reduced reporting of cases of infection that, when they manifest as clinical disease, should be reported but generally are not!

As I have stated previously, the classification of SAEs leading to reported AEFIs should have multiple categories:

“caused by”,
“probably caused by”,
“possibly caused by”,
“unclassifiable at present” (because of a lack of critical information),
“possibly not caused by”,
“probably not caused by” and
“proven not caused by”.

When there are only a few AEFIs for a new vaccine, categories “1.” through “3.“ should be considered as “causal” but only category “7.” should be considered as “not causal”—the other categories, “5.” And “6.”, should be considered as “indeterminate” because of the scarcity of AEFIs.

As the number of AEFIs common to a particular vaccine increases, the AEFIs in category “2.” will probably move toward category ”1.” or stay put while the AEFIs in category “3.” will move toward category “2.” or stay put. The AEFIs in category “4.” will tend to move into another category as the growing number of AEFIs narrow the information needed to classify a given AEFI properly, and the SAEs in categories “5.” and “6.” may move toward “causal” or “not causal” as the understanding of the pattern(s) of SAEs associated with a given vaccine or vaccine set expands.

In a population of millions, the noise from genetic diversity and other factors (e.g., diet, sanitation, hygiene, housing, war, clothing, availability of adequate amounts of safe food, and availability of clean potable water) preclude any valid black/white classification scheme for AEFIs, such as that being proposed by the WHO, as does the lack of universal availability of in-depth differential diagnostic work-ups on those who are injured and/or detailed microscopic and immunological work-ups on those who die after vaccination or, for that matter, after other medications and/or medical procedures.

In the scientific world of “cause and effect”, the scientific method initially presumes that, for apparently healthy persons (only those to whom prophylactic vaccines are supposed to be administered), the adverse events that develop after inoculation (AEFIs) are directly or indirectly caused by the inoculation, unless there is proof that the inoculation cannot be a: a) direct causal, b) contributing causal, or c) triggering causal factor for the reported AEFIs following that inoculation.

Thus, finding that the inoculee has some other medical condition that may also be causal does not, as those who are attempting to ignore the scientific method claim, rule out the vaccination as also being a causal factor. [Note: A recognized example of this is “asbestosis”, where those who smoke are at higher risk, but some non-smokers are diagnosed with “asbestosis”. In this simplistic example, in the vaccine defenders’ (WHO’s) world, asbestos could not be a causal factor for lung disease unless the person did not smoke—an absurd assumption—one that is as absurd as claiming that a child’s merely having some other medical condition (diagnosis) somehow prevents a vaccination from being a causal factor for the post-inoculation SAE observed.

Paul G. King, PhD,
President, FAME Systems

When Vaccine Patients Act Like Consumers

What if vaccines were sold like cars? Instead of having them pushed on you, what if you had a real choice, with real information and competition? Now that a greater & greater number of people are acting like consumers & asking questions, the WHO & UNICEF are taking steps to counter it, and some plans are downright scary.

by Jagannath Chatterjee

How would you act if you have decided to buy a car? You would probably visit the car showrooms, talk to the salesmen, collect literature on the cars, visit other showrooms, search the internet, talk to people who have purchased cars, exchange ideas with your friends, talk to the mechanics, and find out more from people who have faced problems with a particular brand. You would also be concerned about the performance and the safety features and wonder if they are up to the advertisements and sales pitch. Pretty much normal, is it not?

Car manufacturers take it on their stride. They know that this is a typical consumer behaviour pattern. The consumers are choosy, picky, and try to have the best value for money. They have distinct individual needs and choices that have to be met in order to stay afloat and be profitable. The manufacturers respond by manufacturing quality cars that are better than the competitors’ and take great care to ensure that both performance and safety aspects are above reproach.

But what if the car manufacturers had an association and a huge political lobby that ensured there was no competition? What if all the car salesmen were taught by the same institution? What if the manufacturers decided what the salesmen read and understood? What if all the salesmen were given licenses that could be revoked if they did not speak the same language? What if they had laws that protected them from lawsuits?

You know what would happen, don’t you? You would then be dealing with a cartel. A cartel that would take the decisions and force them upon you. You would end up with products you do not want. Products that would neither perform nor be safe, for these would not be ensured in such a situation, simply because they would not matter.

The entire pharmaceutical market is such a cartel—and more so the vaccination industry.

The movement against vaccinations, both by victims as well as by discerning doctors, is based upon the consumer behaviour pattern. People are now comparing products, reading the package inserts, logging on to the internet and discussion boards, social media; they are talking to people whose children have suffered adverse reactions, or they have themselves, and they are reading books that gives a glimpse beyond the hype.

The WHO & UNICEF are not happy with this.

In two recently released documents, these two institutions, which we have been indoctrinated into believing have our best interests at heart, have reacted rather strongly. They may have been compelled to do so by their biggest funders, philanthropists and philanthropic institutions that have perfected the art of corporate philanthropy. The money that freely flows to them is used for agendas that are rarely public. You can read up on Bill Gates and George Soros if you have not done so already.

To keep the medical fraternity in check, and to provide ample scope to those who toe the line for favors earned, the WHO has devised a document named, “Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI)” . It is the revised WHO classification prompted by the way recent products like the oral polio vaccine (OPV), Pentavalent vaccine, the Rotavirus vaccine, and the HPV vaccines have behaved in the market.

As pointed out by doctors in India, in response to the deaths from the Pentavalent vaccine, many countries suspended its use. The WHO did not like this attitude, which went against its policy of imposition. They responded by reclassifying the way the doctors are to report adverse effects. Doctors once had more choices, but the WHO reduced them to two: due to the vaccine and not due to the vaccine. After the Andrew Wakefield witch hunt, few doctors have the courage to associate any adverse event directly to any vaccine. So the vaccine became safe, since adverse effects were recorded as not due to the vaccine.

Unfortunately, some black sheep did not like the way the issue was handled. They continued to point out that the vaccine was killing children and also that there was no other cause other than the vaccine, as the children were perfectly healthy before it. They suggested that the vaccine was causing an allergic reaction and also that SIDS was not a legitimate explanation, because SIDS is a classification made if there is no exciting factor in sight. In the case of the Pentavalent vaccine, there was indeed an exciting factor—the vaccine.

Instead of testing the vaccine on laboratory animals to check if there was any allergic reaction, the WHO studied the contents and simply reiterated that the vaccine was safe. It also sought approval from vaccine industry-funded associations, which declared that they have been using the vaccine without any side effects and that the deaths were indeed SIDS. It did not matter for them that the death rate from the Pentavalent vaccube was more than the infant mortality rate of the state in which the maximum number of deaths occurred.

The WHO then realized that it had to act sternly to save its crumbling empire. It thus came out with its revised classification, which rogue doctors promptly pointed out would result in no vaccine ever being associated with any adverse event.

Dr. Paul G. King went through the document thoroughly and came out with a classification that has shocked the entire establishment—not because it is implausible but because it is the right way to classify an adverse event!

Dr King’s classification contains the following choices;

Caused by
Probably caused by
Possibly caused by
Unclassifiable at present because of lack of critical information
Possibly not caused by
Probably not caused by
Proven not caused by

The last choice could only be made after a proper autopsy of the case was made and all possibilities were ruled out by an impartial investigating team.

Writes Dr King:

In general, the designation of an infant’s death following shortly after an inoculation session as “SIDS” is inappropriate absent a complete detailed autopsy that rules out any brain, brain stem or cardiovascular inflammation as well as any and all out-of-control immune-system aberrations. Thus, in many cases, the “SIDS” label is misused to hide “death by vaccination” especially when high fever, wailing, seizures, convulsions, body rigidity and/or body flaccidity are observed just after vaccination.

It remains to be seen how the WHO responds to these suggestions. As has been observed in the past, this august institution frames its own rules and ignores sane voices.

UNICEF, reacting to the public outcry against vaccine reactions and the absolute disregard for all calls for a transparent and just system of evaluation, came out with its own document titled, “Tracking Anti-Vaccination Sentiment in Eastern European Social Media Networks“.

The document reveals the obvious. Today, parents are looking for alternative sources of information and are suspicious about the official handouts or assurances that vaccines are safe and effective. In other words, parents are now acting as consumers and not as sheep, as they did in the past. There has been an awakening and it is not going to go away.

Embedded in this document is a subtle threat. While doing its research on internet-based personalities and groups, the researchers could actually pinpoint the locations and the computers from which the messages emanated. However, bound by ethics, the organization declares that it has not captured the information. The message is clear: We can get you when we want to.

It finishes by saying that it is all about conspiracy theories, Western plots, and conflict of interest. It also acknowledges that there are “influencers” who have a considerable hold on those seeking information. In its chapters it quotes exact sentences that the activists will identify as their own. These quotes are of people expressing concerns about adverse effects, development disabilities, chemicals, toxins, contaminants and religious and ethical values.

It recommends that powerful search engines should continue to be used to track the influencers, groups, and sentiments. They should also be optimized such that official views turn up in the top, while users search for information. It advises that, “Members of the individual sphere should be approached with an emotional appeal.” It divides the public into three sections, core, intense and alert, and concedes that the first two categories have already made up their minds. It is the “alert” category that are yet undecided and should be targeted by staff trained by communication experts.

It is very interesting to note that UNICEF wishes to take advantage of its brand value. What it wants is to “Empower through delivering key information and helping to ask the right questions. Leverage strong UNICEF brand proposition.”

The public should now be aware about what they are dealing with. Technology, money power, institutional power, the power of indoctrination, the power to segregate information and block unwanted sound bytes, the power to intimidate and threaten, the power to lie in an official imposing tone: All will be the tools through which the vaccination dogma is promoted.

Buyer Beware!

Are Teens Complainers or Are HPV Vaccines Worse?

Up until now— with some exceptions, the majority of those vaccinated are either infants or the elderly. Infants of course cannot verbalize their anguish and pain. They scream—relentlessly. And they are drugged—relentlessly. And the same is done to the elderly, their adverse effects passed off as “age related” diseases.

by Leslie Carol Botha
first published as Gardasil for Infants & Report of Gardasil-CIN3 on National Cervical Cancer Coalition Site

One of the things, I have said for years about the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix is that the pharmaceutical companies and the government made a big mistake in this age of social media in marketing a vaccine to a demographic of teen girls with intelligent voices … at least those who can still talk.

Girls, and now boys who can voice the damage to their bodies, minds—and most of all spirits. And I will say this until I am blue in the face … none—none—NONE of these girls and their parents were anti-vaccine. They played by the rules—believed their doctors, pharmaceutical marketing campaigns that promised ‘one less girl to get cervical cancer’. They believed their government—and they believed in the greater good.

Up until now— with some exceptions, the majority of those vaccinated are either infants—or the elderly. Infants of course cannot verbalize their anguish and pain. They scream—relentlessly. And they are drugged—relentlessly. Vaccine injuries in the elderly; strokes, seizures, dementia, Alzheimer’s is written off as ‘age-related’ diseases—and our beloved parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents are drugged—relentlessly.

How many infants would be able to verbalize and define these injuries—collected from HPV vaccine data from VAERS—and from the girls who experienced these ‘new medical conditions’ post-vaccination?

HPV Vax Adverse Effects

So let’s see, giving infants a vaccine for HPV—when the FDA specifically points out that if a girl is pre-exposed to HPV and gets Gardasil—the vaccine loses 44.6% efficacy—or her chances of cervical cancer increase by 44.6% makes sense to whom? (VRBPAC Background Document- Gardasil™ HPV Quadrivalent Vaccine May 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting Page 13 – Table 17).

There are many peer-reviewed studies that point out that HPV is not just a sexually transmitted disease—and that the virus can be passed in-utero. And there is no HPV pre-testing being conducted anywhere and at any age. In fact, I have spoken with many mother’s who were exposed to HPV—and had their daughter’s vaccinated to protect them and now their child is adversely injured from the vaccine. That leads to the question of how does the vaccine react when a woman/girl is previously exposed to HPV? Has that study been done?

And then of course, there is the whole virus replacement theory—which now has become a recently published study—and no longer a theory. Gardasil and Cervarix protect against only two malignant strains of HPV. This study now shows that it is possible that when HPV 16 & 18 are eradicated that other malignant strains may take their place.

Proof is in the pudding—and in this case the rise of abnormal pap smears, cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer in a demographic of girls who a historically low incident rate.

Need more proof and less pudding? Then how about the anecdotal story of a 27 year old woman—without children—who posted in April of this year on the National Cervical Cancer Coalition site asking for alternative treatments for CIN 3. She writes:

Hello all! I have decided to start a discussion to hopefully find some women going through the same thing I am, so I can get some more info on escharotic treatment and if anyone has had success with it. I’d really like to hear some results and if they’ve had significant regression and that the dysplasia stayed away for a long time as well as the HPV. Also diet and supplement suggestions are very much appreciated! It was scary to hear things like cancer and hysterectomy as a 27 year old without children. It is unfortunate that the medical world wouldn’t recommend things like diet change and other natural alternatives to cutting out sections of the cervix, especially when cutting out the cervical dysplasia only takes care of the symptoms of HPV, rather then helping your depressed immune system to fight off the virus.

A little over a week ago I got the dreaded phone call from my doctor saying that this second leep didn’t get all of the cin3 cervical dysplasia. I was devastated. I have always wanted to be a mother more than anything in the world. When hearing that there is nothing more they can do because another leep isn’t an option considering I haven’t had children, and they would just wait and watch it. So many things were going through my head! Should I go ahead and get my cervix removed before it turned to cancer and spread to my uterus and then I’d need a hysterectomy? Maybe I should just have my eggs frozen and have the cervix taken out so I don’t have to worry about it spreading and being on hormone replacements etc.

After many hours of crying and self pity I decided to try and Google alternative treatments since all my doctors want to do is sit and wait for it to turn to cancer, bc they said it has a 15% chance of getting better. So those aren’t good odds if you ask me. I found a girl on this website that had gone through the same thing as me and had success with natural treatments for her CIN3 dysplasia which gave me hope.

The traumatized woman then proceeds to outline a synopsis of her diagnosis and treatment. Ready?

January 2011: started the series HPV Gardasil shot. I was positive for HPV since 2006 but had no symptoms, and wasn’t sure of which strand I had. The recommended I still get it to protect against other strands. (Guess these docs did not read the VRBPAC report – nor the study on replacement viruses. Or maybe the pharma reps forgot to tell them.)

January 2012: routine pap (which I’ve gotten since age 15 when I started oral birth control for bad periods) came back abnormal for the first time in my life.

February 2012: colposcopy and 4 biopsies taken came back cin1 and 2. Was referee to oncologist bc I wanted to watch it rather then do leep at that time because I haven’t had children

July 2012: colposcopy and biopsies showed that dysplasia progressed to cin 2 and 3

August 2012: leep performed by oncologist. Results came back cin3 and carcinoma, margins were not clear.

Oct 2012: went to new oncologist for check up., had colposcopy and biopsies, came back clear (but weren’t, they biopsied wrong spots apparently

February 2013: check up colposcopy and biopsies, results cin3. (apparently they didn’t get everything in first leep)

March 2013: second leep preformed, results cin3 margins were not clear, they were cin3 as well. The section that was cut out was right at the center of my cervix going into my endocervix and I was told they can not cut up in there bc they would be cutting blind since they can’t see it. I have been told to wait and watch since I haven’t had children, and to have biopsies every 6 months.

The article is posted as ‘Alternative Cin3 cervical dysplasia treatments’. You will have to register with the National Cervical Cancer Coalition to be able to read the article. I hope the NCCC reads their own posts. Thanks to a reader of my blog for sharing this link with me.

Using infants as medical experiments is unlawful and unethical. Since when did ‘slick marketing campaigns’ dictate evidence-based health practices? Our teenage daughters were duped—are we now going to stand by and let our infants be vaccinated with this dangerous and deadly vaccine?

I won’t. Our sisters in Japan will not—and I am hoping and praying that the Japanese government will hold fast in their decision to revoke their recommendation for the HPV vaccines in their country.

Scientists Explain Why HPV Vaccines Are Unsafe

There is no evidence that Gardasil or Cervarix can prevent cancer better than a decent screening program. There is strong evidence that they can produce severe and life-threatening harm. This report by 4 scientists documents how science has been corrupted & misused to promote these life-devastating vaccines.

Menarche-Aged Girl with Dragonfly, by Catarina Carneiro de Sousa

by Heidi Stevenson

Scientists who have done extensive research on the topics of immunization and autoimmune disorders have produced a new paper concluding that:

[P]hysicians should remain within the rigorous rules of evidence-based medicine, to adequately assess the risks versus the benefits of HPV vaccination.

In the context of the paper, it’s quite clear that they are saying the evidence does not support a positive risk-benefit ratio for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix.

Ovarian Failure

The paper starts by discussing three cases of young women, studied by the authors, whose development had been quite normal, yet who experienced ovarian failure after receiving HPV vaccinations. They were studied extensively and all other potential causes were ruled out, leaving only the vaccines as the causative agent. They also point out another well-documented case similar to the ones they had investigated.

These are “only” four young women whose lives have been devastated, but the methods of treating girls who are recently post-menarchal is now to give them hormonal drugs, which can mask the symptoms of ovarian failure. The truth is that we do not know how many have been affected this way, and very likely won’t know for years.

These cases are then compared with the newly-described syndrome, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), which can be characterized by the existence of several criteria. All of the girls fit the definition. Following is a copy of the table that displays which of the symptoms each young woman suffered:

POF Victims' ASIA Symptoms Notice that a positive diagnosis for ASIA requires that the individual suffer from at least two major, or one major and two minor, symptoms. All three of these young women suffered from the vaccine-induced ASIA syndrome.

ASIA conditions include Gulf War syndrome, macrophagic myofasciitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and silicone implant-induced autoimmunity (primarily from silicone breast implants).

The authors point out that the ASIA symptoms:

… are all too easily ignored or disregarded as irrelevant and non-vaccine related not only by patients and physicians, but also by scientists involved in design of vaccine trials. Nonetheless, many ill-defined medical conditions that fall under the ASIA spectrum are frequently disabling and thus of significant clinical relevance.

In other words, although far too many clinicians, doctors, and researchers ignore ASIA symptoms, calling them “irrelevant and non-vaccine related”, the fact is that they most assuredly are associated with severely disabling conditions.

HPV Vaccines and Autoimmune Disorders

The paper then goes on to discuss HPV vaccines and autoimmunity. They point out that the literature currently documents:

… numerous cases substantiating the link between adverse immune reactions and HPV vaccines, including fatal reactions.

They cite the case of a teenage girl who suffered dizziness, paresthesia, memory lapses, excessive tiredness, night sweats, loss of ability to use common objects, intermittent chest pain, and sudden racing heart after HPV vaccination. She died suddenly six months after the third Gardasil vaccination. The autopsy was unable to identify any toxicological, microbiological, or anatomical cause of death. However, investigations by a researcher showed that blood and spleen had been contaminated with HPV-16 L1 gene DNA fragments, which corresponded with ones fragments found in Gardasil vaccine vials from different lots. The authors conclude:

These findings suggested that the quadrivalent HPV vaccine was indeed the most probable causal factor in this particular case. Specifically, the HPV DNA fragments detected in Gardasil vials appeared to be firmly bound to the aluminium adjuvant used in the vaccine formulation and thus likely protected against enzymatic degradation by endogenous nucleases.

The authors then point out that HPV vaccination has been associated with several autoimmune diseases, including Guillain-Barré syndrome, demyelinating neuropathies, systemic lupus erythematosus, pancreatitis, vasculitis, thrombocytopenic purpura, and autoimmune hepatitis. The most common autoimmune disorders associated with HPV vaccines are neurological in nature.

After a brief discussion of several well-documented cases of neurological autoimmune disorders post-HPV vaccination, the authors state:

Indeed, Gardasil appears to have failed to meet a single one of the four criteria required by the FDA for Fast Track approval. [Emphasis mine.]

Non-Assessment of HPV Vaccine Safety

Several ingredients in the two HPV vaccines are known to be a problem. One is the use of the microbe Saccharomyces cerevisiae, common yeast, as the medium in which the Gardasil antigen is developed. S. cerevisiae is known to trigger autoimmune response, as discussed recently in Yeast in Vaccines Tied to Autoimmune Diseases. Cervarix, though, was produced with a different medium, Trichoplusiani.

The two vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are distinctly different in another way. Gardasil contains a single adjuvant, aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate, while Cervarix utilizes a combination of aluminum hydroxide and the oil-based monophosphoryl lipid A.

These differences, since they involve the hyper-activation of the immune system and a known trigger for autoimmune disorders in only one of the vaccines, suggest that a recent study’s finding that there are no adverse effects whatsoever in either vaccine beggar belief.

The authors note that there are important biases in the study:

Only women who had been vaccinated with at last one dose were included, “thus making this particular population less sensitive for the detection of serious adverse reactions (given that such events occur with much lesser frequency when fewer doses of the vaccine are administered).”
The autoimmune disorders that were the focus of the study were rheumatological, autoimmune disorders, and neurological/ophthalmic. Yet, not a single doctor who screened the participants was involved in any of those fields!
The Safety Review Committee failed to consider that “autoimmune manifestations may be non-specific
and not fitting a well-defined autoimmune condition yet severely disabling.”
The study was funded solely by Merck, which manufactures Gardasil, and all of the authors had financial ties to Merck.

Most significantly, in every clinical trial evaluating safety for both Gardasil and Cervarix, the so-called placebo groups were given injections that included an active aluminum adjuvant!

Though this is a common practice in vaccine trials, it is obviously a blatant means of biasing the results.

Can it be any wonder that these researchers have concluded that there is no evidence base to document the safety of either Gardasil or Cervarix? Clearly, any doctor who genuinely cares for patient safety must treat this lack of safety evidence as condemnatory of the HPV vaccines. As the authors state in their conclusion:

Given that persistently infected women with HPV seem not to develop cancer if they are regularly screened and that the long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are still a matter of speculation, a more rigorous assessment of vaccine risks and benefits is recommend[ed]. Thus, physicians should remain within the rigorous rules of evidence-based medicine, to adequately assess the risks versus the benefits of HPV vaccination.

There is no legitimate reason for pushing these vaccines in the face of strong evidence indicating severe debility and even death induced by HPV vaccines, combined with a lack of evidence of efficacy.

Reference:

Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine and Primary Ovarian Failure: Another Facet of the Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants; American Journal of Reproductive Immunology; Colafrancesco S, Perricone C, Tomljenovic L, Shoenfeld Y; doi: 10.1111/aji.12151.

The Coming Push to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants

If you can push the most dangerous vaccines in use today on teen and pre-teen girls, and later on boys of the same age, without any proof that they work, then why not give them to newborn infants—plus another ‘booster’ later on? That appears to be planned for Gardasil and Cervarix, along with a slick new marketing program, thanks to the vaccine-industrial complex.

Fear Bringer, by Cap CatRagu, Syringes Added

by Heidi Stevenson

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database shows clearly that the vaccines with the most reported adverse effects are Gardasil and Cervarix, the two human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines. It would obviously be madness to lower the age at which they’ve given—but that appears to be exactly what’s being planned.

As Gaia Health has documented, these vaccines have not yet been shown to be effective in preventing cancer, and may even cause the disease. In fact, the document released by the FDA to justify Gardasil stated that women who are infected with HPV at the time of vaccination are 44.6% more likely to develop cervical dysplasias.^[1] This is not a minor issue, yet it is routinely ignored in the rush to vaccinate.

So why should we be surprised to find that the search for excuses to lower the age of vaccination is in full force?

The Justification

A review published in the journal Vaccine was produced to justify injecting the HPV vaccines into tiny babies.^[2] The authors wrote:

On a global scale, vaccination of newborns and infants is well established and has developed a successful working infrastructure. The hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination programs offer a model for HPV introduction in which newborn and infant immunization achieves a rapid reduction in the prevalence of the HBV carrier rates in immunized cohorts of children, and of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer decades later. [Emphasis mine.]

They consider giving babies the hepatitis B vaccine on the day of birth to be a model for reducing the age of HPV vaccination. Rather than vaccinating girls shortly before or near puberty, they’re suggesting that they be vaccinated as infants.

Nowhere in the document do they even consider the potential of adverse effects! Gardasil has recently been associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),^[3] the disease that Stephen Hawking has. Japan has withdrawn its recommendation for HPV vaccines because of severe adverse effects.^[4]

UK Reported Adverse Effects for Cervarix and Other Vaccines The number of Cervarix adverse effects reported in the UK is shown in this graph from a study published in Current Pharmaceutical Design.^[5] The reported harm produced by this vaccine dwarfs that of any other vaccine.

Yet, the authors of “Reframing Cervical Cancer Prevention: Expanding the Field Towards Prevention of Human Papillomavirus Infections and Related Diseases”^[2] want to push the age for jabbing children downward to infancy. By the way, they also think that there would be no problem with giving a booster dose at the age girls are now vaccinated, as if the vaccine produces no harm!

There is no consideration given to adverse effects. There is no consideration given to the increased burden on babies with not only another vaccine, but the one that’s known to produce some of the worst and most common adverse effects of any vaccine.

Conflicts of Interest

It was financed by major governmental agencies, including the European Commission, the Instituto de Salud CarlosII of the Spanish government, and the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca–Generalitat de Catalunya of the Catalonian government. The authors and their employers are:

F. Xavier Bosch: Cancer Epidemiology Research Program (CERP), Institut Català d’Oncologia–Catalan Institute of Oncology, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain
Vivien Tsu: Director of PATH’s HPV vaccine projects, Seattle, WA, USA—a partner of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Alex Vorsters and Pierre Van Damme: Centre fo the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Mark A. Kane: Consultant on Immunization Policy, Mercer Island, WA, USA

The authors’ employers are obviously are deeply tied to the vaccine industry. However, their personal ties to the vaccine-industrial complex is stunning:

Bosch has conducted HPV vaccine trials and epidemiological studies for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur MSD. He does screening and HPV testing trials supported by Qiagen, and takes travel grants and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Roche, and Qiagen.
Tsu did not declare any conflicts of interest. However, she was in charge of a Gates Foundation-funded HPV vaccine trial in India that came under attack for ethics violations by the Indian government. Subjects were selected from vulnerable uneducated tribal populations, consent was not properly obtained, and adverse events were not properly recorded. Tsu excused the ethical lapses because they were “the sorts of issues that the study was intended to tease out”!^[6] Aside from that, one must wonder how she can possibly suggest that she has no conflict of interest when her entire salary is dependent on promoting the vaccine dealt with by this review.
Van Damme is chief and principal investigator for vaccine trials conducted on behalf of the University of Antwerp, which gets grants from vaccine manufacturers. He also takes speakers’ fees for vaccine presentations and is secretary of the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board.
Vorsters is a member of the executive secretariat of the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board, which is supported by grants from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck.
Kane is a member of the Merck Advisory Board for the HPV vaccine and receives consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from Merck.

Why should we trust a study steeped in money from the Big Pharma corporations that would benefit by moving the age for HPV vaccination to infancy, and adding a booster jab at the age it’s now given? The complete lack of consideration for the harm produced by HPV vaccines is shocking, even in a group as deeply enthralled to the corporations they’re promoting. You would think that they’d at least put on a show of concern, but there isn’t a hint of it.

Selling Infant Vaccinations

The article subtly reveals that the HPV vaccine was not originally intended to be used solely for cervical cancer in women, that it has always been intended for a variety of cancers. So, apparently, girls were being used as guinea pigs, both to figure out how to sell the vaccine and to ascertain adverse effects … or, more likely, as this review seems to imply, to see how far they could push a vaccine with horrific and common adverse effects. Certainly, all the girls who’ve been given HPV vaccines have been treated in a most cavalier manner, since Gardasil was tested on rat testes, but not on ovaries!

Now that it’s obvious that the HPV vaccine is exceptionally dangerous, the effort seems to be on how to hide the risks. If there’d been any concern, then why didn’t these authors bother to include adverse effects in their calculations?

The authors’ concern had nothing to do with the lives lost and devastated. Instead, it was for the poor sales job done with HPV vaccines. They think that the process of pushing them on people would have gone much more smoothly if, instead of referring to them as “cancer preventing”, they had said that the vaccines prevent “HPV-related disease”.

So, you can expect to see a subtle change in how officials refer to HPV vaccines. Instead of discussing cancer, in particular cervical cancer, you’ll likely start hearing references to HPV-related diseases—with an emphasis on the plural. They’re going to sell vaccination of infants as a multi-cancer preventive. Parents who refuse to allow the HPV vaccine, for girls or boys, will be accused of dooming their children to a huge array of cancers. How’s that for a marketing technique?

Sources:

Gardasil™ HPV Quadrivalent VaccineMay 18, 2006 VRBPAC Meeting, Table 17 on page 13
Reframing Cervical Cancer Prevention. Expanding the Field Towards Prevention of Human Papillomavirus Infections and Related Diseases; Vaccine; F. Xavier Bosch, Vivien Tsu, Alex Vorsters, Pierre Van Damme, Mark A. Kane; doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.090
CDC Takes Closer Look at Gardasil and Paralysis; U.S. News & World Report
Japan Withdraws HPV Vaccine Recommendation for Girls; Medscape
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines as an Option for Preventing Cervical Malignancies: (How) Effective and Safe?; Current Pharmaceutical Design; Tomljenovic L, Spinosa JP, Shaw CA.
Vaccine trial’s ethics criticized; Nature

Tagged babies hpv vaccine, big pharma hpv vaccine, cervarix for infants, cervical cancer prevention, gardasil als, gardasil amyotropic lateral sclerosis, gardasil for infants, hpv study conflicts of interest, hpv vaccines for infants, hpv-related diseases, marketing hpv vaccine, marketing hpv vaccines, merck gardasil marketing, pharmaceutical, pharmaceuticals, Reframing Cervical Cancer Prevention Expanding the Field Towards Prevention of Human Papillomavirus Infections and Related Diseases, selling hpv vaccines, vaccine, vaccines