Research presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research has shown that women who were vaccinated against HPV had a higher risk of developing non-vaccine strains of the virus.
Approximately 60% of over 600 women between the ages of 20 and 26 who had been given the Gardasil vaccine to protect them against one of four strains of HPV (6, 11, 16, and 18) ended up being more at risk for developing an infection caused by another strain of the HPV virus.
Even more telling, unvaccinated women had lower rates of the non-vaccine, high-risk strains of HPV, which tells you that, just as Natural Society reported, the human papillomavirus isn’t likely to affect you if you aren’t vaccinated, and there are real dangers associated with Merck’s vaccine.
Dr. Diane Harper, who helped develop Gardasil, said to attendees of the Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination: “Gardasil is largely unnecessary, and it has never been fully tested on females under the age of 15 …[there`s] little need for the vaccine”
Sadly, the researchers of the study suggested that women who had already received three doses of the original four-strain Gardasil vaccine, get another new shot of Gardasil that contains nine different strains. The FDA has approved this ‘new and improved’ Gardasil that now contains an additional five types of HPV – 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 – even though 213 women who received Merck’s original HPV vaccines sued the company after being permanently damaged, with complaints varying from anaphylaxis to miscarriage.
The vaccine can’t protect against all strains of HPV anyway; there are over 100.
Merck’s Gardasil Seriously Scrutinized
Though the US FDA has given Gardasil the green light more than once, researchers at the University of British Columbia showed that the vaccine’s effectiveness was not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or “cherry picking” data), but was also unproven.
In a review the authors stated:
“We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We found 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 odds 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.”
With all this research coming to the surface – what is Gardasil really guarding?