Research That Heightens Concerns

Updated: Nov 8

Chapter 6: Article 5


What if the HPV vaccination causes infertility, or cancer? Would you get vaccinated?

Dr. Little examined how fertility was studied following vaccination. In her lecture she expressed her shock at how poorly rat fertility was tested and measured. Human fertility was not tested at all. And the follow-up safety studies, which looked at nearly 200,000 vaccinated individuals, we're completely deficient in their methodologies for evaluating reproductive effects.

Recently, an economist named Gayle DeLong published research in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. She and her colleagues had noticed that birth rates declined between 2008 and 2010. As economists, they speculated at that time that this decline in birth rate was due to the recession. However, when the economy improved but birth rates continued declining DeLong decided to investigate further, utilizing data published by the CDC following the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. This survey represented 8 million women, ages 25-29 years old, residing in the USA between 2007 and 2014.

DeLong's analysis of the Government data shows that pregnancy rates in married women, the group most likely trying to conceive, differed depending upon the vaccination status of the women. Married women who had been vaccinated against HPV, were more likely to have not been pregnant, compared to married women who had not been vaccinated against HPV. Her analysis of the data also showed that if she grouped the vaccinated women according to number of HPV doses they received, one dose, two doses or all three doses, the higher dosed groups had even lower rates of pregnancy. To quote from her research, she says:

For married women, the difference in prevalence of pregnancy between exposure to the HPV vaccine (50.1%) and unexposed group (76.9%) was −26.2%. If all the married women had received the HPV shot, the number of those women who had ever been pregnant would have diminished by 1 million...

...One common misperception regarding regression analysis is that it may be used to determine causality. Regressions demonstrate associations, not causations. Although the analysis presented here shows a relationship between vaccine injection and lowered probability of ever being pregnant for females aged 25–29, the conclusion that vaccines were the basis for reduced probability cannot be made.

Another concerning study that was recently published analyzed Swedish Government data, and arrived at the conclusion that HPV vaccination may actually be causing cervical cancer, rather than preventing it.

Both the American and Canadian package inserts state: "GARDASIL 9 has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity." If the vaccine does what they say it does, countries should see cervical cancer rates falling, not rising.

Before discussing Sweden's findings, it's important to first explain that this research was published on April 30, 2018, and was later retracted. The retraction letter explains that the author, out of fear, lied about his name and chose to publish under a pseudonym. As per this medical journal's policy, an author must publish under their true identity (maybe that is a requirement of all medical journals, I'm not sure). Despite the author's deception with his name, the publisher, the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, has allowed the retracted paper to remain visible on their website, noting that the science and content within the article was found to be correct. A notation has since been added to the research paper, which states, "Under the current circumstances where publication of any information critical of vaccines can have serious personal repercussions, the author has chosen to publish under this pseudonym." This research states (emphasis mine):

The Centre for Cervical Cancer Prevention (NKCx) in Sweden has noted in its annual report of 2017, which includes data up to 2016, a substantial increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, especially during the years 2014 and 2015. 

...The efficacy of HPV-vaccines has been evaluated by studying premalignant cell changes in the cervix called CIN2/3 and cervical adenocarcinoma in situ or worse. The efficacy was calculated for individuals who have not been exposed to HPV 16 and 18. These individuals are called naı̈ve. The vaccine is efficacious only in individuals not previously exposed to HPV 16 and 18 (naıv̈e individuals). If an individual has already been exposed to HPV 16 and 18, no new antibodies are made. Therefore, the vaccine will not work for non-naı̈ve individuals. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for about 70% of all cervical cancers. It is therefore crucial to give the vaccine to naı̈ve individuals. During their review of Gardasil by the FDA, the efficacy of the vaccine was also evaluated on individuals who were exposed to the oncogenic HPV strains before vaccination since individuals who are non-naı̈ve will also receive the vaccination. A concern was raised for disease enhancement (increase in CIN 2/3, cervical adenocarcinoma in situ or worse) in this subgroup. In these individuals, the efficacy was -25.8% (95% CI: -76.4, 10.1%) (5). Thus, vaccination with Gardasil of non-naı̈ve individuals who had HPV 16/18

oncogenes before vaccination showed a higher level of premalignant cell changes than did placebo.

The increase in premalignant cell changes in non-naı̈ve individuals, as suggested by the FDA, is consistent with the knowledge that vaccination can cause reactivation of both target and non-target viruses. For Gardasil, the HPV types 16 and 18 are called target HPVs since the vaccine contains antigens for these two HPV types. Other HPV types for which the vaccine does not contain any antigens are called non-target HPVs. For individuals exposed to Gardasil, evidence of a selective and significant reactivation of the oncogenic non- target HPV types 52 and 56 was reported in the genital tract for all women. This article studied women 13–22 and 23–40 years of age from 2008 to 2013. The target HPVs 16 and 18 decreased only in the younger age group but oncogenic non-target HPVs increased in both the groups, 20%–40% and 8%–30%, respectively. The increase in the total burden of non-target oncogenic HPVs for vaccinated individuals may be consistent with the findings in the FDA report where the efficacy of the HPV vaccine was less favourable for non- naı̈ve women compared with those on placebo. A possible mechanism to explain the increased incidence of cervical cancer may therefore be virus reactivation as described above.

To conclude this series on HPV, I'd like to remind you that according to Merck's Gardasil package insert, their testing showed that Gardasil antibody titers dropped rapidly across all tested age groups. It's reasonable to believe that the 9-15 year old group did not retain any antibody memory four to five years after vaccination. That means these kids will lose their protection somewhere between age 13 and 16, before they've reached the critical age bracket (16-24 years), when most will become sexually active and at greatest risk of acquiring an HPV infection. The inadequate duration of vaccine antibody memory therefore nullifies the whole point and purpose of the entire HPV vaccination program. If the vaccine cannot provide antibody memory throughout the entire critical age bracket, then Dr. Harper explains that this vaccine offers all risk with zero benefit because no cancers are prevented, the cancers are only postponed.

This again brings us back to David Graham, the FDA whistleblower. NEVER forget his words, which were:

...Ask the FDA to produce its benefit analysis that shows that the benefits exceed the risks. It doesn't exist. The FDA has never looked at benefit. The FDA just says to the American people, "The benefits exceed the risks. Trust me. Believe me. "If you held the FDA to its proof the American people would see how badly served they've been by the FDA and its culture that belittles safety in the drug companies' interest...

GSK, the maker of Cervarix, and Merck, the maker of Gardasil, are two of the three leading vaccine producers for the Canadian market. The three leading vaccine makers have created the majority of the childhood vaccines that are given in early infancy and childhood. 

The HPV vaccines are the newest childhood vaccines on the market, and as such, most people believe that our modern scientific testing standards, and the technological and medical advancements and achievements of today, ensured that this vaccine was absolutely safe, long lasting and highly protective before licensing - otherwise it wouldn't have been approved, right? Slate media group and astute doctors have described the Gardasil testing as "baffling," "flawed," deficient and completely inadequate for determining safety. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to assume that the other older childhood vaccines that these companies also produced, vaccines which were approved last century when our technological and medical knowledge was far inferior compared to our knowledge today, those older vaccines must have also had, at minimum, an equally flawed, inadequate, and unreliable safety testing process. 

In Ch5: Article 1 I touched on the 2011 Supreme Court decision in Bruesewitz vs Wyeth, quoting the court document that explains why vaccines are considered unavoidably unsafe. In that same 2011 Supreme Court decision, the two dissenting justices made the following statement (emphasis mine):

 ...there are “only one or two manufacturers for a majority of the vaccines listed on the routine childhood immunization schedule.” ... The normal competitive forces that spur innovation and improvements to existing product lines in other markets thus operate with less force in the vaccine market, particularly for vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. 

...Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins.

Many lessons can be learned from the inadequacies of the HPV vaccine testing, and hopefully, if the public is made aware of the issues and the holes within the testing process, then hopefully change will be demanded. At minimum, pre-licensing studies need to compare long term health outcomes, in BOTH the vaccine test group and a control group that received a genuine saline placebo. And post-marketing studies need to compare reallong term health outcomes between a fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and nevervaccinated group. Until studies accurately follow the long term health outcomes in these different groups, we simply will not know the true risk or benefit of these drugs. And if we don't know the genuine risk because officials refuse to compare vaccinated and never vaccinated groups, then that means that our children are participants in an ongoing uncontrolled experiment.

CONTINUE to the next article: Ch7: Article 1

Article Sources Here

  • Study using US Survey data shows HPV vaccinated women had fewer pregnancies Here

  • Cervical cancer rates in Sweden have risen significantly in recent years Here

  • David Graham, the FDA does not conduct benefit/risk assessments Here

  • Supreme Court of the United States Ruling 2011 Bruesewitz vs Wyeth Here

  • Statement by Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic that the Cervarix vaccine studies were not designed to detect autoimmune diseases  Here

  • CDC - vaccinated long term health outcomes have never been studied Here

  • Gardasil Package Insert Here

  • Gardasil 9 Package Insert Here

  • Cervarix Package Insert Here

  • Alberta and American vaccination schedules 

  • Black Facebook Icon
  • Black YouTube Icon
  • Black Instagram Icon