NEW STUDY PROPOSES THAT THE HPV VACCINE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE IN CERVICAL CANCER
RATES
BY WORLD MERCURY PROJECT
When the U.S. introduced the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in 2006, cervical cancer rates
had been steadily declining for several decades, in large part due to successful and routinized
cervical cancer screening.
A similar trend also was underway in Europe, including in Scandinavia.
Within that region, Sweden stood out as having the lowest levels of cervical cancer.
Sweden now appears poised to lose this distinction.
Sweden�s Center for Cervical Cancer Prevention reported in 2017 that the incidence of invasive
cervical cancer has reversed course and is climbing in nearly all counties.
The increase was particularly steep (20%) over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015.
Neither the Center, health authorities nor the media offered any explanation for the
turnaround in the country�s long-established cervical cancer trends.
An independent Swedish researcher decided to take a closer look.
On April 30, 2018, the researcher proposed in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics that
the HPV vaccine may be causing rather than preventing cervical cancer in some women.
This assertion directly threatens the status quo marketing of HPV vaccines as universally
safe and effective.
For this reason, the author chose to publish under a pseudonym�in the belief that �the
use of his real name would have invited personal repercussions from those opposed to any questioning
of vaccines��but did not inform the journal that the published name and affiliation were
fictitious.
A week later, this omission became known to the journal�s editors, who were affronted
and immediately published a correction.
However, the editors also took the unusual and courageous step of keeping the article
on the journal�s website because �the issues raised by it are important and discussion
on it is in the public interest.�
Young women and the HPV vaccine As a first step in assessing the unexpected
uptick in Sweden�s cervical cancer incidence, the anonymous researcher�s simple analytic
strategy was to parse, by age group, the same national data that informed the 2017 report.
When the researcher compared cervical cancer rates in younger women (ages 20-49) to rates
for older women (over age 50), he found that age made a big difference: �The increase
in the incidence of cervical cancer was shown to be most prominent among women 20�49 years
of age while no apparent increase was observed among women above 50� [emphasis added].
When he compared changes in invasive cervical cancer incidence in 2006 versus 2015, he again
found that the increase mostly affected younger women�and especially women in their twenties.
Why should this be the case, when we are told that HPV-induced cervical cancer �often
takes years, even decades, to develop after a person gets HPV�?
As one answer, the Swedish researcher points out that the slow-simmer timeline does not
apply to all women who get cervical cancer.
In fact, rapid onset characterizes roughly 25% of cases, with �a short interval of
less than 3 years from negative�screenings to finding of cancer.� This means that an
increase in cervical cancer incidence could very well be discernable within the short
period of time observed in Sweden:
The country approved the Gardasil vaccine in 2006.
By 2010, about four-fifths (80%) of 12-year-old girls were given the vaccine, and about three-fifths
(59%) of 13�18-year-old girls were vaccinated through a �catch-up� program.
By 2012-2013, �most young girls were vaccinated.� By 2015, the oldest girls in the �catch-up�
group (ages 15-18) had reached their early twenties and thus were �well within� the
20-29-year-old cohort that displayed the greatest increase in cervical cancer incidence.
Gardasil vaccination in this subgroup produced a higher level of premalignant cell changes
than did placebo.
Disease enhancement and viral reactivation The Swedish researcher offers two additional
(and potentially overlapping) explanations for the surge in invasive cervical cancer
in younger women.
First, he explains that seven in ten cases of cervical cancer are linked to just two
�target� HPV strains (HPV 16 and 18), and the vaccine is useless�and even damaging�to
individuals who have been exposed to those strains prior to vaccination.
In fact, he shows that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized this problem
in its clinical review of Gardasil in 2006, which euphemistically described the �potential
for disease enhancement� in Gardasil-vaccinated individuals who had been exposed to HPV 16/18
before vaccination compared to individuals with no HPV 16/18 exposure (p. 359).
Gardasil vaccination in this subgroup produced �a higher level of premalignant cell changes
than did placebo.�
To account for the differential subgroup effects, the researcher points to the phenomenon (well
recognized in the peer-reviewed literature) of vaccine-induced viral �reactivation,�
whereby a vaccine triggers a latent virus to manifest �severe reactivation symptoms.�
With over 200 known strains of the ubiquitous human papillomavirus (and over a dozen that
are associated with cervical cancer), it is fully plausible that the HPV vaccine could
reactivate cancer-causing HPV strains (both �target� and �non-target�) in previously
HPV-infected young women.
The Swedish researcher concludes:
�The increased incidence among young females, the possibility of virus reactivation after
vaccination, the increase in premalignant cell changes shown by the FDA for women who
were already exposed to oncogenic [tumor-inducing] HPV types and the time relationship between
the start of vaccination and the increase in cervical cancer in Sweden could support
[the] view� that the HPV vaccine is �caus[ing] an increase in invasive cervical cancer instead
of preventing it among already infected females.�
An appalling record From their inception, the two HPV vaccines
(Merck�s Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline�s Cervarix) have been aggressively
marketed, with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly
through the use of inappropriate placebos.
It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus�s whitewashed
evidence.
Recent letters published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) have brought forward some stark
numbers that illustrate the vaccine�s appalling record:
A serious adverse event rate of 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated (14
per 10,000) that far exceeds the risk of dying from cervical cancer (23 per 10,000) (BMJ
letter, May 2018).
Reports to the World Health Organization�s global adverse drug reactions database�conservatively
estimated to represent 10% of actual reactions�of over 305,000 adverse reactions where the HPV
vaccine �is believed to have been the cause,� including 445 deaths (23 of which were sudden)
and over 1,000 cancerous tumors (including 168 cervical cancers), among other serious
reactions (BMJ letter, December 2017).
�from an individual perspective, �a healthy 16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying
from cervical cancer but is faced with a small but real risk of death or serious disability
from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.�
Even in countries where the burden of cervical cancer is far higher, researchers are eyeing
the HPV vaccine�s dismal performance and are reaching the conclusion that �proven
and cost effective methods� of cervical cancer screening �remain the most feasible
prevention strategies in low resource countries.�
One group of Indian researchers argues that from an individual perspective, �a healthy
16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small
but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single
case of cervical cancer.� From a programmatic perspective, they state that �there is no
data in the literature to suggest that vaccination can replace cervical cancer screening.
For any population coverage, cervical screening will always detect more pre-cancers and cancers
than vaccination can prevent.
Cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that cervical screening is more cost-effective
than either vaccination alone or vaccination with screening.�
Returning to Sweden, researchers at the Uppsala Monitoring Center have described how easy
it is for risks to �escape epidemiological detection.� The implications, according
to this group, are that �case reports and case series can no longer be discarded simply
as �anecdotes� or �coincidence,� and their contribution to the evidence base should
not be �trumped� by the findings of an epidemiological study.� The bottom line
is that a corrupt vaccine approval process should not be allowed to sacrifice young women
on the altar of industry profits.
For more infomation >> After Ambush Makeover She Says: 'This Is What I'm SUPPOSED To Look Like!' | TODAY - Duration: 5:58. 
For more infomation >> Trump is Gearing Up to Fulfill a HUGE Campaign Promise on Planned Parenthood - Duration: 5:07. 
For more infomation >> Venezuelan election is completely fake: Vanessa Neumann - Duration: 3:10. 
For more infomation >> Folge 2121: Kein Weg zurück (Dahoam is Dahoam v. 23.05.) - Duration: 28:04. 
For more infomation >> 05- "What the Home is Built On" - Heaven's Point of View - Duration: 28:31. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét