By Helen Petousis Harris 19/02/2018 71


In the clinical trials for HPV vaccines cervical cancer was not a primary endpoint. An endpoint in a clinical trial is a disease or a symptom of interest. I want to explain why cancer was not an endpoint these efficacy studies. Instead surrogate endpoints were used.

Why not, given that is what the investigators wanted to prevent?

Because you can’t not treat a woman with cervical abnormalities to see if her lesions develop into cancer. That was tried once between 1955 and 1976, didn’t go down well and it led to a fairly monumental change in ethical research practices. For a detailed academic account of the ‘experiment’ check out A History of the Unfortunate Experiment by Medical Historian Lynda Bryder.

The point here is that you cannot monitor a person for cancer then not treat it at the first sign of trouble. So, when the HPV vaccines were being tested for efficacy cervical cancer could not be the endpoint.

So how can you test a vaccine against cervical cancer if you are not measuring cervical cancer?

Because you do not need to. Imagine removing oxygen or the fuel from a fire or the combustion process. In order to even start the fire you need heat. Imagine cervical cancer like a fire. If you remove heat, fuel and oxygen you have no fire.

Almost all (~99.7%), if not all, of cervical cancer is caused by a persistent infection with several particularly nasty types of Human papillomavirus, these are called the oncogenic types. Primarily types 16, 18, followed by 45, 31, 52, and 58, which collectively cause around 98%. Infection with one or more of these viruses is the first essential step. If you avoid infection you avoid cervical cancer, however, most women will become infected at some point in their lives and either clear the infection or not develop disease. But some do.

The next thing that has to happen after infection is the unchecked cell growth (cervical dysplasia) and this happens in stages. These changes are precancerous and like infection, a necessary step on the way to cervical cancer. Some of these lesions will resolve on their own, but not always. Cervical screening programmes have been instrumental in catching disease at this early stage. Many woman have avoided cervical cancer through cervical screening, although I am sure any woman who has been subjected to ablation, cone biopsy, resection of their cervix, or even hysterectomy would vote to avoid both the procedure and the anxiety.

In order to appreciate why the studies used infection, low grade, and high grade abnormalities check out the diagram below. You can see that there is a progression from one stage to the next. If you prevent the first stage or the second etc. cancer cannot develop.

 

If you want a more detailed description about the progression of cervical cancer check out the Nature Reviews article on the topic. It has a really good diagram.

How long does it take to progress form CIN2/3 to invasive cancer?

For most people it takes an average of 23.5 years with 1.6% taking less that 10 years.

Bit of background

So with all this in mind, to prove that HPV vaccines prevent cancer diagnosis was always going to take time. Time has now lapsed just enough for us to take a peek at cervical cancer among women who participated in the pivotal HPV vaccine clinical trials, those who received the vaccine first and plenty of time to check out the precancerous lesions over a longer period of time.

Cancer doesn’t appear overnight like a frost. Many changes need to occur before a minor infection becomes a minor abnormality, to become a major abnormality, to finally become cancer. Preventing the seemingly benign HPV infection is the first step because virtually all cervical cancer is caused by the human papillomavirus.

A recent follow-up study found none of the woman who received Gardasil in Scandinavia during the clinical trials has developed cervical cancer in a 12-year follow up. While not surprising this is more encouraging news for HPV vaccines.

Who was in the study?

The first women to receive Gardasil did so during the clinical trials. Of the ~23000 trial participants, some came from the Nordic countries where there were 2084 participants available to follow up on the national registries for cancer. The study used what is called ‘person years’ which is effectively the total number of years these participants contribute as a whole to the study. For example the first vaccine recipients have had more time to follow up (12-14-years) than the last ones (≤4-years). There were 13, 7935 person-years in this study.

In order to be able to draw any conclusions the study needed at least 2634 person-years to accrue for at least 4-years. This study actually had 3393 person years over 8-10 years. That means that enough time had lapsed to measure cervical cancer as an outcome. If vaccine efficacy was maintained at least 90% you would expect to see 3 cases of CIN2 or higher in these women.

Among these women vaccinated there were no cases of CIN2 or worse. Even if the vaccine was 90% effective we would expect 3 cases. IN other words, there were no cases of CIN2, CIN3, Adenocarcinoma in situ, cervical cancer, vulval cancer or vaginal cancer caused by HPV-types in the vaccine.

There was one case of CIN1 among these women. This woman began the study positive for HPV type 45 and 51 (cancer causing types). The lesions were positive for HPV 45.

What else do we know about the effectiveness?

Lots. Effectiveness is what happens in the real world after a vaccine gets licenced and implemented into a programme. Here are some key recent findings:

  • In Sweden high grade cervical lesions declined by 75% in vaccinated cohort (girls vaccinated when they were under 17years). There were 1,333,691 girls and woman aged 13-29 in this study.
  • In the USA where uptake of the vaccine is relatively low there are early indications of effectiveness against high grade lesions which by 2012 were around half the prevalence in vaccinated women compared with unvaccinated.
  • In the USA, aside from observing lower rates of high grade lesions among the vaccinated, there has been a 64% decline in the prevalence of the HPV types included in the vaccine among girls and women aged 14-19 years and a 34% decline among the 20-24 year age group.
  • In another USA study the prevalence of vaccine type viruses declined by over 90% among the vaccinated females, 32.3% among unvaccinated females with an overall 75% decline among all women.

HPV vaccine is obliterating the infection that causes cervical cancer and the cell changes that lead to cancer. Follow up of girls and women vaccinated first shows no pre-cancer or cancer.

Featured Image: Cartoon representation of the molecular structure of protein registered with 1svm code. Wikimedia Commons.


71 Responses to “Proving HPV vaccines really prevent cancer”

  • Hi Helen
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSdCxgF0blc

    “Dr Diane Harper is a professor and chair of the department of Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville. She was the principle (lead) investigator of both HPV vaccines — Gardasil manufactured by MSD and Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline — and has published the sentinel reports about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.

    As a recognized expert in cervical cancer, Dr. Harper has been involved in national and international groups that set the standards of care for prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. She has travelled the world speaking before professional gynaecologic groups, ministers of health, and lay groups, including school audiences in over 100 countries on every populated continent, empowering women with an understanding of the risks and the options available, before embarking on a treatment program”.

    She is one of the worlds’ top 50 experts on HPV and Gardasil.

    If you go by what she says: 90% of those with an HPV infection will be cleared themselves in the first 2 years. By 3 years half of the remaining 10% will have progressed to CIN2 AND CIN3 pre-cancerous lesions (5%). Of the CIN3 pre-cancerous cases ONLY 20% will become invasive carcinomas by 5 years and 30% of by 30 years . Assuming a 50/50 ratio of CIN2 and CIN3, then 0.5% will be invasive carcinoma by 5 years and a further 0.75 by 30 years. That stat is quite different to what you say of 1.5% taking less then 10 years to become invasive cancer; but does happen to be this world re-known experts statistic for 30 years!

    With this factual progression of the disease, you can see that the statistics you give for effectiveness above are much lower than the bodies natural effectiveness. Therefore your dogmatic and dramatic opinion of the vaccine “obliterating the infections” is totally incorrect and has no scientific basis in the least.

    I agree with you that it certainly is NOT surprising that there was not a single case of cancer in supposed 12 years of the Scandinavian study. The randomness of probability does not mean that it will definitely occur within 12 years when it would normally take 30 to show any significance. And the trial size was very small. That research was actually only done for 10 years and I see that person years is a manipulative tactic to infer the trial went on for longer.

    Also you say the HPV vaccine is proven to stop infection right up to CIN 3, so must be preventing cancer. The HPV vaccine we use in NZ is only for 9 strains of dozens of HPV and Merck admit themselves in the packing slip that it does not prevent all cancer and that smears should still be done. This was because of the expert Diana Harpers research and findings they state that.

    Therefore HPV vaccines can be tested for efficacy to prevent cervical cancer by using a long enough trial period. Something that has not yet been done for any HPV vaccine. Mercks 5 years is certainly no where near long enough.

    You also said “Primarily types 16, 18, followed by 45, 31, 52, and 58, which collectively cause around 98%”. This is incorrect. It is the 9 strains in the Gardasil 9 vaccine that cause around 98%. This also shows how you diagram is incorrect, as there are 2% of other cancer causing HHV strains the vaccine does not cover.

    Person years is another made up ‘scientific’ value specifically for the vaccine industry, such as using placebos that are not placebos and making that sound valid and scientific? The correct trial size of participant should be at least 10,000 people, and testing for only ONE variable. It would seem you are trying to smokescreen that Merck have never done these sort of reputable scientific trials.

    Are you aware of research showing how the vaccine is causing HPV cancers?

    Reputable research would list conflicts of interest of each author. I have noticed there are none on the references above. can you provide it please? With ghost-writing, Vaccine company ‘research’ control, media gagging, etc, it is extremely difficult to determine if ‘science’ in support of vaccines is reputable, especially with all the corruption by Merck in their Gardasil trials and their fraud case. This vaccine has crossed the line totally in their complacency with corruption and it is a very sad reflection of your own integrity to stand by it.

    • Karen,
      I see you have come armed with some of your own ‘facts’ here. Diane Harper was not the Principal Investigator of any HPV trial. She was a lead site investigator. Big Difference. There were many sites all over the world 62 in FUTURE I and 90 in FUTURE II. Diane Harper was one very small, albeit important, part of this. She was not the first author on these reports.

      With respect to your estimates of vaccine impact, the impact of the vaccine on infection, pre-cancers, and early cancer is evident and accepted by the global scientific community. You will need to produce something a bit more robust than a youTube clip as evidence strong enough to seriously challenge the vast body of evidence now available for HPV vaccines.

      Person years and other terms are legitimate epidemiological terms and I am intrigued to know how you have come up with a clinical trial design superior to that developed by leading epidemiologists and clinical trial experts. A clinical trial protocol is about 100 pages long and developed by a huge team of scientists then approved by regulatory agencies and local ethics committees, yet you have produced one in a couple of sentences.

  • Hello Helen

    I see you are true to who you are and can not answer me without personal attack. Can you not act professional and come armed with facts instead?

    People such as yourself do all they can to gag vaccine truths being distributed to New Zealanders and put on the internet. It is great that the videos put on You-tube that are constantly removed are put back up by the experts determined for people to have the truth. Just because gagging control is more restricted on You-tube than on websites and FB, does not make those truths propaganda, such as vaccine rammers such as yourself give.

    I could give you a huge amount of facts on the vaccine. It’s much more than a you tube video.

    In virtually ALL of those research sites you mention Merck plant their employees to make sure the ‘research’ matches what they want to be published.

    Do you place yourself as more of an expert on HPV and Gardasil vaccines than Diane Harper? One of the 5 of the worlds top experts on it? And YES she was the PRINCIPAL investigator in the Merck trials. Or perhaps you ought to have it out with her and her university that they are lying. http://ahrp.org/diane-harper-md/

    Merck themselves acknowledge her expertise and accommodate that in the package inserts.

    I do not know what you mean by my coming up with a clinical trial in a couple of sentences? I know exactly what is required for a clinical trial and Merck did not meet any scientific standards at all and had to use fraud to have the Gardasil vaccine approved then used that fraudulent trial to say Gardasil 9 will have those results.

    It’s all in the package inserts, you should read one sometime.

  • I see you conveniently ignored: That stat is quite different to what you say of 1.5% taking less then 10 years to become invasive cancer; but does happen to be this world re-known experts statistic for 30 years!

    Please answer my questions:

    Are you aware of research showing how the vaccine is causing HPV cancers?

    To break that down for you:
    Lack of carcinogenicity testing of the vaccine
    Replacement
    Increase in cancer risk for those previously exposed to human papilloma virus
    Presence of recombinant DNA (rDNA)

    Of course there is also the issue of people such as yourself telling misleading others into believing the vaccine is stopping all cervical cancer, so they will not get smears and die of it anyway.

    Reputable research would list conflicts of interest of each author. I have noticed there are none on the references above. can you provide it please? With ghost-writing, Vaccine company ‘research’ control, media gagging, etc, it is extremely difficult to determine if ‘science’ in support of vaccines is reputable, especially with all the corruption by Merck in their Gardasil trials and their fraud case. This vaccine has crossed the line totally in their complacency with corruption and it is a very sad reflection of your own integrity to stand by it.

    I see that person years is another manipulation and re-definition of correct trial procedure, just for the vaccine industry. Assuming becauase a small proportion of trail participants had the vaccine before the trial officially started, that they can say all the participants give results that extend beyond the trial period. This is totally unscientific and ludicrous, just as saying a placebo was used to test Gardasil and re-defining the correct term for placebo, just for the vaccine industry also.

  • Dr Bernard Dalbergue is a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer MSD.

    “The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all”.

    “I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers”.

  • In ‘Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine: are they at odds’? Found on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) American government website. Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic and Dr Christopher Shaw say:

    “Because vaccines represent a special category of drugs, generally given to healthy individuals, uncertain benefits mean that only a small level of risk for adverse reactions is acceptable. Furthermore, medical ethics demand that vaccination should be carried out with the participant’s full and informed consent. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable vaccination benefits and risks. The way in which HPV vaccines are often promoted to women indicates that such disclosure is not always given from the basis of the best available knowledge. For example, while the world’s leading medical authorities state that HPV vaccines are an important cervical cancer prevention tool, clinical trials show no evidence that HPV vaccination can protect against cervical cancer. Similarly, contrary to claims that cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide, existing data show that this only applies to developing countries. In the Western world cervical cancer is a rare disease with mortality rates that are several times lower than the rate of reported serious adverse reactions (including deaths) from HPV vaccination. Future vaccination policies should adhere more rigorously to evidence-based medicine and ethical guidelines for informed consent”.

    Dr Shaw is a professor in the department of ophthalmology and visual sciences at University of British Colombia who also chairs the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI’s) scientific advisory board.

    By Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic is an early career postdoctoral fellow. She was awarded a PhD in 2009 in Biochemistry; joined the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia and is currently researching the neurotoxic effects of aluminium vaccine adjuvants.

  • http://www.gynecologiconcology-online.net/article/S0090-8258(17)30774-6/fulltext

    In HPV vaccines – A review of the first decade Dr’s Diane M.Harper & Leslie R.DeMars (Dr Leslie R Demars is a gynecologist and obstetrician) conclude:

    “Three dose efficacy preventing CIN 2 or worse by any HPV type is about 62% Gardsail9; the three dose efficacy preventing CIN 3 or worse by any HPV type is 43% for Gardasil, with no data for Gardasil 9”.

    This efficacy will be lower with NZ’s TWO dose regimen for under 15 year olds.

    And yet MSD say there is a 94.4-100% efficacy for the Gardasil 9 vaccine. Most of their efficacy is poached from the natural disease and body’s awesome design to do so to cure itself.

  • http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/g/gardasil9inj.pdf

    Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (MSD) manufacturers own information:

    “Currently there are no data from studies of GARDASIL 9 relating to females over 26 years of age” (pg 2).

    “Studies using a mixed regimen (interchangeability) of HPV vaccines were not performed for GARDASIL 9” (pg 2).

    “The safety and efficacy of GARDASIL 9 have not been evaluated in individuals aged 65 years and over” (pg 4).

    “Efficacy of GARDASIL 9 in preventing infection and disease related to HPV Types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in individuals previously vaccinated with GARDASIL has not been assessed” (pg 25).

    “Effectiveness of GARDASIL 9 against persistent infection and disease related to vaccine HPV types in 16- through 26-year-old boys and men was ‘inferred’” (pg 19).

    “the efficacy of GARDASIL 9 in 9- through 15-year-old girls and boys is ‘inferred’” (pg 21).

    “The efficacy of GARDASIL with respect to prevention of cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancers and related diseases in individuals up to and including age 45 years can be ‘inferred” (pg 14). (It seems a missing 9 snuck through proof reading with this, but if it is correct, then inference of Gardasil 9 efficacy is taken from inference of Gardasil, a double whammy!!!).

    “Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of GARDASIL 9 against placebo were not acceptable because HPV vaccination represents the standard of care for protection against HPV infection and disease in many countries. Therefore, the pivotal clinical study (Protocol 001) evaluated the efficacy of GARDASIL 9 to prevent HPV-related cervical, vulvar, and vaginal disease using GARDASIL as a comparator” (Pg14).

    So they are saying their “scientific” trials did not need to be reputable and have blind placebos or cover any of the population groups listed above, as it is considered just because they are given they are effective!!! (i.e. they meet World Health Organisation (WHO’s) requirement of being vaccinated regardless). And they take it a step further to say the results of Gardasil efficacy can be applied to Gardasil 9; DESPITE their absolute fraudulent study of NOT applying a placebo to Gardasil, but pretending they did to have the drug approved and released by the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA).

    Because a placebo was not used, the efficacy results could not be determined, as any disease in the placebo group could be due to any of the contents in the NOT ‘placebos’ or immune system onslaught making the candidates vulnerable to the diseases. It will not give a scientifically valid real world result.

    Despite all this, MSD give efficacy of the vaccine as “The efficacy of Gardasil 9 against CIN 2 and worse related to HPV Types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31,33, 45, 52, and 58 compared to Gardasil was 94.4%. The efficacy of Gardasil 9 against CIN 3 related to HPV Types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 compared to Gardasil was 100%” (Pg 19).

  • MSD’s own data.

    “Duration of protection of a 2-dose schedule of GARDASIL 9 has not been established” (pg 23).

    “In women 27-through 45 years of age, efficacy of GARDASIL 9 for the 4 original types is expected based on (1) high efficacy of GARDASIL in women 16-through 45 years of age and (2) comparable immunogenicity of GARDASIL 9 and GARDASIL in girls and women 9-through 26 years of age” (pg 22). (Highly unscientific to say Gardasil 9 for the same diseases as Gardasil can be EXPECTED to have a transferable efficacy!)

    In the same study, in girls and boys 9 through 14 years old, GMTs at one month after the last vaccine dose were numerically lower for some vaccine types after a 2-dose schedule than in girls 9 through 14 years old after a 3-dose schedule (HPV types 18, 31, 45, and 52 after 0, 6 months and HPV type 45 after 0, 12 months; Table 11). The clinical relevance of these findings is unknown” (pg 23) (Requires further research).

    “On the basis of this immunogenicity bridging, the efficacy of a 2-dose regimen of GARDASIL 9 in 9 through 14 year old girls and boys is inferred” (pg 23).

    “In women 16-through 45 years of age immunogenicity of GARDASIL 9 can be inferred from GARDASIL results of girls and women 9-through 26 years of age” (pg 22).

    Despite all these pre-conceived assumptions, inferences, omissions, incomplete data and concluded expectations in the design of the trials and despite using all the efficacy data of the fraudulent Gardasil trials, Gardasil 9 was still fast-track approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

  • http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/g/gardasil9inj.pdf

    In MSD’s trials they did not test for Genotoxicity (whether the product can cause cell mutations which may lead to cancer) or carcinogenicity (promotes the formation of cancer) (pg 4).

    Can you please supply all the trials that have now researched all the factors MSD are currently saying are not researched and also reputable, and conflicts of interest stated in the journal.

    Thanks
    Karen

  • Could I suggest again that you try the reading I suggested in an earlier reply to you? (The “new” Sciblogs design doesn’t allow us to track back through comments, but it’s the currently last comment in this post: https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2018/02/21/the-brouhaha-around-placebo-choice-in-vaccine-trials/)

    With respect, “raining” things on people by selective cut’n’pasting isn’t going to help you understand. (Also, it’s a bit rich to “demand” people do things for you, especially busy people like Helen.)

    Your quotes are selective, and leave out the context. You leave out entirely the extensive checking that was done, e.g.

    The safety and tolerability of GARDASIL was assessed in clinical trials in females 9 through 45 years of age and males 9 through 26 years of age. The safety profile of GARDASIL 9 is generally comparable to that of GARDASIL in the groups studied (women 16 through 26 years of age and girls and boys 9 through 15 years of age).

    The safety of GARDASIL 9 was evaluated in 7 clinical studies (Protocols 001, 002, 003, 005, 006, 007, 009) that included 15,776 individuals who received at least one dose of GARDASIL 9 and had safety follow-up. […]
    </blockquote?

    (with more detail following that.)

    “So they are saying their “scientific” trials did not need to be reputable and have blind placebos or cover any of the population groups listed above, as it is considered just because they are given they are effective!!!”

    That kind-of presumes intelligent, knowledgeable people are idiots, which of course they’re rather unlikely to be (and presumes you know better than they do, which, with respect, is also doubtful).

    Of course they’re limited to what has been tested, but you can’t imply they’ve done no testing when they have. As an example, if testing ages 9—mid-20s found the vaccine safe and effective, health systems would be able to use the vaccine for those age groups. The best benefit for the HPV vaccine is to the young, so leading with this age group is appropriate. Later testing can check what the situation for elderly are if it’s thought there is value in delivering the vaccine to the elderly too.

    And so on.

    Can I suggest again that you’ll do better if you try understand what has been done. It’ll also help to try understand the wider picture of where the anti-vaccine protests has come from – hence the reading I suggested in my earlier reply to you.

  • Hi Grant

    This blog is not about the safety, it is about efficacy and Helen saying the Gardasil 9 vaccine will stop all cancer and her incorrect diagram above. I do realise safety was kind of researched for Gardasil 9, albeit null and void as far as correct scientific research goes. But the efficacy they took from the fraudulent Gardasil trials.

    You have cross quoted safety as compared to efficacy. That is not very intelligent.

  • Grant

    I just asked Helen to and to put up the references to the research she quoted on here and to give me the researches credentials and conflicts of interests. I realise she needs to save face in this regard, but she should not put up blogs if she is not prepared to put her money where her mouth is. If she is so objective and has reputable research on hand, it would not take long at all for her to appear professional in that regard.

    I also asked if she proclaims herself to be more knowledgeable than Diane Harper on HPV and the Gardasil vaccine. It should not consume much of her time to say yes or no.

    What you put up is selective cut and pasting. Safety of the vaccine has nothing to do with this blog, and then you put up a comment on efficacy and used that to personally go me.

    I understand the Gardasil vaccines a lot more than you or Helen and also the pro-informed stance, so your sarcastic demeaning comments in that regard are more a reflection of yourself.

    I have not mentioned that no testing has been done. I have said it was very scientifically unreputable testing. None were done for efficacy, merely transferral and assumptions from the fraudulent Gardasil trials. As I posted:

    “Three dose efficacy preventing CIN 2 or worse by any HPV type is about 62% Gardsail9; the three dose efficacy preventing CIN 3 or worse by any HPV type is 43% for Gardasil, with no data for Gardasil 9”.

    How does that make me implying no efficacy testing was done?

    The Gardasil vaccines were never researched professionally and reputably to show efficacy and safety prior to release. There were just assumptions, inferences, translation of fraudulent Gardasil ‘research’ of efficacy, omissions etc, to fast-track its release with hindsight testing on people who do not have informed consent; but are fed lies. Ad as I have already commented far too many variables were being tested. You lump together the total trial participants, but when you break that down to each variable or inter-dependent variables, the population sizes are far too small for reputable scientific significance.

    Having a doctorate or being intelligent does not make a person have high personal or professional integrity. Some of the darkest most deceitful corrupt people in the world have had doctorates and been highly intelligent. Where those particular people fail in their profession is how they respond when confronted with truths they want to live in denial of and who want the majority silly enough to look up to them and trust them to never know.

    A doctorate buys you immunity in this country from ever being held to account. That is a guaranteed immunity the Gardasil vaccine can never give.

  • I have all the FDA documents on Gardasil vaccines. I know the ‘extensive checking’ that was done, plus all the twisting things around, lies, smoke-screening, excuses etc to avoid meeting the standards of the checks.

  • Grant/Helen

    I do not believe I am spamming. There is so much evidence against what Helen says on this and some of her other blogs, that it will be a fair bit of commenting.

    That is OK if you can not read (have no answers) to all my posts. I understand; but it would have been quite helpful to me if you could put your money where your mouth is as an increasing number of people are looking to me for objective informed information and I could have looked into what Helen declares, to see if it is indeed reputable science. But when she refuses to back up her opinion it will always be that what I currently know to be correct still stands.

  • Helen,

    Is your role to indoctrinate? Is that why you can not give me the research information I asked for and require? So you are not really a member of an advisory centre then are you?

    Immunisation Advisory Centre, Medsafe, MO’H’ etc always have the time to use tactics such as gagging, oppression, refusing government services, firing doctors who speak out, defaming those who say the truth, personal attack, intimidation, arrogance, inciting others to hate, sabotaging websites, browsing, computers, USB sticks etc etc; plus those you and Grant use on these blogs.

    You also use emotional coercian, manipulation, intimidation and blackmail with advertising showing children who have suffered from the disease itself; whilst conveniently ignoring the many more permanently injured or killed by the vaccines; or the fact that many of those suffering with the disease do so despite vaccination and/or because of it.

    But when it comes to professional scientific debate, you can not come up with reputable science to back up your claims.

  • Hi Karen,

    As I pointed out yesterday, “I’m only someone trying patiently to point out a more useful direction for you.” I’ve told you earlier I go out of my way not to attack people. I haven’t written anything “sarcastic” or “demeaning” or similar here.

    As for evidence, Helen did point readers to research papers – look for the links at the start of each of the bullet points in her article.

    Cheers.

  • Hi Karen

    I am an interested but not qualified observer of these pages. The logic of the discussions appeal to me above the detail of the content, which is probably why I find yor approach so unhelpful.

    Your approach has moved from aggressive questioning to badgering and hectoring, with a side order of character assasination.

    Your questions, to the extent they ar relevant to this post and page, have been answered. Perhaps you don’t like the answers, but they have been answered. Those answering have done so with patience and respect – you, not so much.

    On that basis alone, and as a lay-person observer, I significantly discount the veracity of your claims and question the motives you might have. I’m guessing I’m not alone – even without a placebo based double-blind trial.

    If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you take a more measured, considered and rational approach to your posts. Dissent is fine, disrespect is not.

  • Ashton you are not worth replying to considering you have a morbid fascination with the fallacies and illogic of the discussions on these blogs, but not anything that requests details and evidence of the chat;n challenges and proves it to be incorrect; and that you will do as they do with personal attack when that you want to live in denial if someone confronts you with it. It’s looking like you are very alone in your denial of the evidence I have posted, apart from the propagandists who run this blog. It means absolutely nothing to me that such a layperson would discredit the reputable science I have posted.

    Grant I have looked at those links and the credentials and conflicts of interest are not listed. That is what I asked for and of which you all refuse to answer. I also asked Helen if she proclaims to know more of HPV and the vaccine than Diane Harper, whom I mistyped was one of the top 50 experts in the world on it, when in fact she is one of the top 5.

    I have pointed out why when one looks at reputable science Helen is absolutely incorrect to say HPV vaccines stop cervical cancer. I anticipated she would be open to discussion and to back up her assertions, not just plant heresy and expect the Ashtons of the country to bob their heads and praise it.

    • Karen,
      Your conduct in this comments section is unacceptable. I have asked you twice to avoid sewing dissonance by misrepresenting people. Dissent and discussion are welcome, ad hominum attacks, the sewing of dissonance, and general disrespect to all concerned are not. This is called trolling, not meaningful debate. We have all answered your questions and your responses have been to disregard everything including the World Health Organization forums of experts and all the robust evidence put forward. From this point forward I will be blocking your posts because they contravene respectful participation.
      Helen.

  • As you do Helen,w hen the going gets too tuff for you and you can not put your money where your mouth is.

  • Ashton, see what you have achieved. Confirming exactly what I said above of

    Immunisation Advisory Centre, Medsafe, MO’H’ etc always have the time to use tactics such as gagging, oppression, refusing government services, firing doctors who speak out, DEFAMING those who say the truth, personal attack, intimidation, arrogance, INCITING OTHERS TO HATE, sabotaging websites, browsing, computers, USB sticks etc etc; plus those you and Grant use on these blogs.

    You also use emotional coercian, manipulation, intimidation and blackmail with advertising showing children who have suffered from the disease itself; whilst conveniently ignoring the many more permanently injured or killed by the vaccines; or the fact that many of those suffering with the disease do so despite vaccination and/or because of it.

    But when it comes to professional scientific debate, you can not come up with reputable science to back up your claims.

    LOL, you were not on this blog until Grant pulled you in who was pulled in by Helen. Both to attack my integrity, but doing nothing constructive to back up this story and put up the evidence.

    Helen and Grant you know exactly what I am referring to when I discuss your tactics and you have proven it. Any reasonable person would read this and see the defensive attack you did on the very first reply when my original post was reasonable and would have remained so had you not been like that.

    The fact is that none of you can answer what I have repeatedly asked of you. It is totally fair enough questions.

    links and the credentials and conflicts of interest are not listed. That is what I asked for and of which you all refuse to answer. I also asked Helen if she proclaims to know more of HPV and the vaccine than Diane Harper, whom I mistyped was one of the top 50 experts in the world on it, when in fact she is one of the top 5.

    I have pointed out why when one looks at reputable science Helen is absolutely incorrect to say HPV vaccines stop cervical cancer. I anticipated she would be open to discussion and to back up her assertions, not just plant heresy and expect the Ashtons of the country to bob their heads and praise it.

    Helen I do not disregard anything anyone says on the Gardasil vaccines. that is why I have asked you for the research, credential and conflicts of interests of that which you say backs you up. I do not know what you are talking about with WHO forums???? Rather that smokescreen, could you please just answer my questions. A lot more people are relying on me to give them information than the couple of others on this blog. I want the information to be reputable and correct, but if you do not provide the scientific basis for that, then what I I to assume?

    However, I also do know given my extensive review of all Gardasil research that there is no robust trials in favor of what you proclaim. You said you are open to discussion on this forum, put your money where your mouth is there too and don’t get Grant stepping in for you and telling me I should not be bothering you. Because then it appears you just want to dictate and the personal attack makes it look like everyone has to be an Ashton and bob their heads to you and bow down.

    People sow their own dissonance by not putting their money where their mouth is.

  • Karen

    I have followed Helen’s citations and they are appropriately professional and they do include conflict of interest statements as required in this area of research. I also found that there are many more fully researched sources that support Helen’s case, particularity around the 10 year anniversary of the vaccine.

    And I agree that both Helen and Grant have avoided personally attacking you.

    Have a good day.

  • Thank you for this blog Dr. Helen; most interesting, and from which I learnt quite a bit.

    However, there were a couple of areas which I found concerning. My primary interest? That of a parent, seeking to make sound decisions for my family, based on sound facts. Which is not easy, given the apparent layers of interests in the field of vaccinations !

    Is Gardasil9 safe? You state, unequivocally that it is. And yet, I am one of a growing number of intelligent parents – yes, lay-people medically – who see growing evidence that the Gardasil9 vaccine is not altogether safe. The evidence, studies and peer-reviewed material amassing steadily surely suggests that it is not altogether safe, and that there are indeed real risks associated with aluminium and other related neuro-toxic adjuvants. In addition to this, there is a growing awareness of manipulation of facts, stats and trials, right up to GACVS level.

    In the interests of Informed consent and, by proxy, decision making, we want to know about these things. We would like to be able to trust our medical professional spokespeople on these matters – but, alas, the statements of safety and efficacy seem to be increasingly misleading, incomplete and, frankly, out of touch with the interests of the common family.

    Isnt it time the time for generalised, dogmatic statements of safety and efficacy from Government officials, to be replaced by transparency, and factual honesty? There Are risks with Gardasil (and other) vaccines. And these risks – though small – are real indeed: It is my view that, in this day and age, these risks should not be trivialised, and ‘swept under the table’, in the hope they wont be noticed. It is better, surely, that they are acknowledged and discussed – in the interests of informed-consent.

    Frankly, I believe that New Zealanders deserve better: They deserve an open honesty of information relating to the issues and risks, which is not currently present.

    Sincerely

  • David

    Please be very careful.

    I’ve followed all of the arguments given in the discussion here and read the papers and the back stories of as much as I can. All I can conclude is that Helen’s original blog is honest, up to date and supported by the global and national medical organizations. The WHO and so forth, whose independent and thorough specialists have taken all of the available evidence and concluded that the HPV vaccines prevent cancer and are safe. That is a consistent and evidence based conclusion.

    Helen’s original post was specific and transparent as you request. As far as I can see the authorities (WHO et al.) are transparent in their decisions too; to suggest otherwise borders on conspiracy thinking. Please be careful with Google, there are many people who are confused and confusing on this subject.

    As far as I can see the counter evidence is cherry picked and often taken out of context and overstated. Any honest assessment of the issues and risks is clearly on the side of the risks of the vaccine being much less than that of the risk of becoming infected with the HPV virus and subsequent development of invasive cancer. That is the risk to worry about.

    Every time my wife and I have given consent for our children’s shots we worry, and every time we are happy that they are vaccinated.

  • Thank you for your reply Maurice. In fact, I believe that I am with you on most (though not all) points. In fact, you nailed my main point – which is, indeed, about ” honest assessment of the issues and risks”.

    Speaking personally, I do not believe that I have Ever seen such an article; one which openly and, in an unbiased manner, considers both the benefits and the risks. There is an ever-increasing tide of (what seems to be) valid, peer-reviewed research, from reputable institutions, which one can deny, and trivialise – for only so long.

    Navigating, seeking truth between extremes, takes considerable wisdom. I wish it were easier. I am not alone
    Would you like me to be more specific ?

  • David,

    You actually have not provided any evidence for any statement you have made. It seems you are trying to question the safety and effectiveness of hpv with statements and claims without supporting evidence, however I think the burden of proof is on you. Considering Helen has provided good scientific data.

    Are you basing your argument against all this good scientific data on the idea that all the people conducting research are part of some sort of wider conspiracy? If you think you have this damning evidence from a reliable source, do share.

  • Thank you for your post Helen. I learnt much from it.

    Please would you consider writing an article, focusing on the Downside Risks of Gardasil9; warts and all. The general populace is increasingly aware that there are indeed downside risks, but which appear to be trivialised – or not talked about or discussed in Official material.

    It would be terrific if it could cover off the scope of serious adverse events, deaths (and likelyhood thereof) – both in New Zealand and overseas – thereby assisting to provide what one might call, an ‘even balance’ of material, for parents, such as me, to consider.

    It would wonderful, if it could also cover the scope of resources, systems and processes which operate in New Zealand, and which might (or could) link back serious adverse effects / deaths to vaccines. Though from a medical family, I am not a medically trained person. I am certain that I – and many others – would value such an article. Sincerely

    • David,
      I could certainly write an article about the risks of Gardasil. It would be quite short and discuss injection site reactions, headaches, and fever, and the risk of anaphylaxis (about 3 per million). It will not list deaths because there are no deaths causally related to this vaccine either here or overseas. I only present science based information and on this vaccine there is plenty which I have discussed in numerous pages of this blog. I have also taken pains to explain the way vaccine safety is monitored and I assume you have read them because you have placed comments there.

      Basically, 125 countries have a passive safety surveillance system for vaccines to detect unusual patterns or signals. Data from all these countries is pooled in Sweden at the international pharmacovigilance centre.

      There are also clinical trials and postlicensure observational studies. With respect to Gardasil there is extensive data which has been mentioned and linked to in this blog along with links to expert summaries. Hundreds of millions of doses have been administered all over the world and high quality studies continue to find very much in favour of vaccine safety. No more bad stuff happens to vaccinated people than to unvaccinated. Here, again, is a link to the GACVS summaries. If you believe that the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety are in someway corrupt or manipulate facts then there is nothing that I could ever say that could convince that the scientific facts strongly support the safety of this vaccine.

      There have been safety issues with vaccines in the past and these have been detected, verified, and addressed. Examples are rotavirus, pandemic flu, and most recently dengue fever. All of these safety issues are scientifically accepted. Here is a link to the current position from GACVS on dengue fever for example. You can clearly see there is an issue and it has been carefully assessed.

      You keep saying you are untrained yet you reject what the global community of experts conclude.

  • David,

    To my reading she isn’t saying she will write an article, she’s saying there isn’t a lot of need to write one, there wouldn’t be much to say.

    • Hi Sue
      The premature death of a young person is the worst thing any family could face. Every year in NZ some 450 people aged 15-23 in NZ die and some of these remain unexplained. Modern techniques and tests are helping explain more and more of these. Underlying heart conditions are a major contributor to the unexplained group.

      With respect to the link you have sent. These are stories about young people who have died. They died at some point after receiving Gardasil vaccine. Given about 60-70% of young people receive the HPV vaccine the odds are that many of these sudden deaths will occur at some point after the vaccine by chance.

      If the vaccine indeed caused these deaths then there are several things we would expect to observe. One, these deaths should occur within a consistent time frame following the vaccine, in other words we would expect to see clusters. We don’t. Two, We would expect to see a higher rate of deaths in groups who received the vaccine compared with those that have not. We don’t. Three, we would expect to see pathological evidence identified and verified by multiple reputable pathologists. We don’t.

      What we have in this web page are outrageous claims by pseudoscientists that have been extensively addressed and refuted for years by the global scientific community. Most of the researchers listed have had papers retracted repeatedly for fraud among other things. Here is one example but the Retraction Watch website has quite a few from authors listed here.

      While some of the material on this website sounds scientific, it is not. This makes it very hard for people search for credible information.

      The fact is that extensive well designed studies continue to demonstrate the excellent safety of the HPV vaccines. There is absolutely no evidence that these vaccines increase anyone’s risk of autoimmunity or death and it makes me both sad and angry that a small group of con artists continue to generate misleading and scientifically devoid material that scares people. There have been real vaccine scares in the past and we have found them and addressed them. This vaccine is not one of them.

      Some how it can be easy to loose sight of what we are preventing – a range of cancers which do cause death, that is a fact.

  • Sue:
    I would hate to have a my child die suddenly and early but unfortunately bad things happen. I would be even more upset if my child died from something I could have prevented. That is exactly the case with the HPV vaccine and cervical cancer. “In New Zealand, about 160 women develop cervical cancer each year – and about 50 die from it.” (https://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/conditions-and-treatments/diseases-and-illnesses/cervical-cancer)

    Preventing these deaths is why we vaccinate. In New Zealand about 2 per 100,000 die from cervical cancer, in contrast about 3 per million have a reaction to the vaccine (they live)(Helen’s figure, above). In my reading on this topic, in response to the discussion here, I was surprised to find that the HPV virus is incredibly common and caught pretty much as soon as sexual activity begins. “Skin to skin contact is all that is required”. Once infection occurs the vaccine is too late. That is why we vaccinate at Intermediate school.

    Let us remember we are saving lives with the HPV vaccine. There is no evidence based counter story.

    Figures from: (WHO sites)
    (http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx).
    (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs380/en/)

  • Grant. Ah, the power of a single word: Could – not would. Indeed, you are quite correct. That said, I hope that Helen will consider writing such an article; it could be very interesting to many. Sincerely

  • Hi, David

    Let’s see if I can summarise the risks of Gardasil9 for you and save Helen the hassle:

    1. Injection site reactions. Redness and soreness at the site of injection as part of the immune reaction that Gardasil9 is designed to induce. It happens.

    2. Headaches. Simple headaches that resolve within a few hours or with simple analgesics such as paracetamol or ibuprofen. They happen.

    3. Fevers. Low grade fevers as part of the immune response that Gardasil9 is designed to induce. Can be eased with antipyretics such as paracetamol or ibuprofen if causing concern. They happen.

    4. Syncope. Probably more a vasovagal reaction to the needle rather than the Gardasil9. My favourite related anecdote is that of the 2.2 metre, 130 kg rugby coach who fainted when his schoolboy player was injected with local anaesthetic prior to suturing a wound – probably nothing to do with the anaesthetic (or even Gardasil9) but all to do with the idea of the needle. It happens.

    5. Anaphylaxis. As Helen said, the chance is about 3 per million. It can happen with all immunisations, not just gardasil9. That’s why people are observed for a time period after all immunisations. There’s an effective treatment for anaphylaxis and all sites providing immunisations should have the treatment available. In other words, it rarely happens but it’s treatable.

    6. Deaths. None. Zip. Nil. Zero. Nada. Does not happen.

    Now balance that against the well documented and even advertised benefits of Gardasil9 as a vaccine to prevent cancer in later life that you have already acknowledged.

    How does your evaluation of the risk:benefit ratio work out now?

  • Hi David,

    Some confusion there on my part. You haven’t acknowledged benefits from Gardasil9. My memory had you confused with someone else.

    Ignore those five words, but the rest of my comment stands.

  • Thank you for your input Stuart.

    With respect, I had expected to be engaging with Dr. Helen. I know not who you are, nor the veracity of your comments. Having said that, Dr. Helen – whom I know is the Director of Research at the Immunisation Advisory Centre – has actually covered much of my primary request, in a more recent response to ‘Sue’.

    In short then, there would appear to be little concern from the public for the safety of the Gardasil9 vaccine, as there are no documented cases of anything significantly or statistically worse than Anaphylaxis – and certainly no deaths – None. Zip. Nil. Zero. Nada. Does not happen – in New Zealand or abroad. Is this actually the case. Dr Helen?

    If indeed this is the case – and it would seem to be so – then any person who thinks, believes, or brings evidence to the contrary might be said to be misinformed, disillusioned, and / or, simply ‘wrong’. Would that be reasonable response ?

    • Hi David
      To the very best of my knowledge no one has died as a result of receiving an HPV vaccine. Therefore none, zip, nil, and zero are accurate terms to represent this fact.

      Also, to the best of my knowledge there have been two deaths in NZ causally related to a vaccine. One was a severe reaction to the Yellow Fever vaccine, a known risk associated with the particular vaccine used in some intrepid travellers. Two was as a result of complications arising from an anaphylactic reaction due to an underlying health condition. Both these events were in older adults. Other deaths that have occurred following vaccines in NZ, while temporally associated, are not causally associated.

      The reason I say NZ (and this would include most other high income countries) is that sadly in some developing countries bad hygiene practices can result in serious adverse events including death because of poor storage of multi dose vials of vaccine and other challenges that these settings face. Therefore, globally there are occasionally deaths. The ones I mention here from low income countries you will not hear about in the papers or on the internet but they are reported throughout the authorities, investigated and recorded. They are real and they are tragic.

      There are several reasons why a person takes a different position, including the three you have mentioned.

  • Hi David,

    “I know not who you are, nor the veracity of your comments.”

    Fair enough.

    I’m just a person who has what I consider a reasonable knowledge of vaccines and community health. https://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2017/11/08/vaccine-battles/#comment-281221 I have the knowledge because it is part of my job. I have nowhere near as much knowledge in the field as Helen – only a few thousand hours of study, research and practice, as opposed to her tens of thousands of hours.

    To anticipate your next question (and avoid accusations of being a shill), apart from the ADT vaccine, I don’t even know in which decade I last prescribed a vaccine.

    Does that help?

  • David,

    I’m still interested as to how your evaluation of the risk:benefit ratio for Gardasil9, or indeed any other vaccine, has worked out

  • I am not yet ready to proffer an interim evaluation of the risk: benefit ration for Gardasil9; there is more to learn.

    Meanwhile, you come across as a ‘man of mystery’ sir ! ” I’m just a person who has what I consider a reasonable knowledge of vaccines and community health” and “I have the knowledge because it is part of my job. I have nowhere near as much knowledge in the field as Helen – only a few thousand hours of study, research and practice”

    May I ask for a little more specificity as to your professional capacity?
    Perhaps you are attached to a University? If so, may I ask which one, and in what capacity?
    It would be useful to know. Sincerely

  • David,

    “I am not yet ready to proffer an interim evaluation of the risk: benefit ration for Gardasil9.”

    Of course not. You admit that you do not have the background or the knowledge base to do so. You admit to not having the basic medical training that would be essential to learn what you do not know about the subject. Because of that, it’s unlikely that you’ll ever proffer an evaluation of the risk:benefit ratio of any vaccine.

    But it appears that you are not prepared to take the advice of people who actually have learned the basic medical knowledge, expanded on that knowledge with advanced training, become a specialist in the subject, and then done further research into the subject for many more years.

    When they are broken, who do you get to fix your car, your dishwasher, your shower? Do you trust to Google and then fumble due to lack of knowledge, equipment and skills whilst attempting to do the job yourself? Or do you trust the mechanic, the electrician, the plumber, each of whom will have had many years of training, knowledge and honing of skills, to advise you and then do the job?

    Of course, anybody with common sense would trust to the expert to give good advice and to do the job required. But you are not prepared to trust the experts to give you advice about your own health and, more importantly, the health of your own children?

    I’m not an expert in public health, the immune system, or vaccines, yet all are part of my job. That means that I have enough knowledge, training, qualifications and even practical experience to understand the real experts and to summarise their findings for others.

    It also means that I don’t rely on Google and my own ignorance to fix my car, dishwasher and shower. I will instead trust the mechanic, the electrician, and the plumber to have the knowledge, training, qualifications and experience to give me the best advice they can in the fields at which they are experts.

    I will also trust my own GP to give advice about my health and the health of my children. If I try to advise myself I will inevitably do a bad job because I cannot recognise the bias and errors that I would undoubtedly introduce into the advice. “Someone who treats themselves has a fool for a doctor” is a very accurate summation.

    You have been given the best advice, based on masses of supporting evidence from all around the world, by experts in the field of immunity and public health with regards to vaccination. Yet you prefer to rely on your self declared incomprehension and place your trust in statements and claims placed on the ‘net without their authors providing any supporting evidence.

    As my mother used to say: “Sense is never common.”

  • Stuart.
    I am a humble truck driver, up early (note the time of this post) and working long hours. This means that I have limited time in the evenings presently. I have an excellent professional background both in London and in New Zealand.

    Be a good chap and keep calm.

  • David,

    I would readily defer to your knowledge and skills as a truck driver – I know my levels of competence (or incompetence) and don’t exceed them.

    I would suggest that when it comes to vaccinating your own children, it would be appropriate for you recognise your own level of competence (or incompetence) and defer to the professional knowledge of your own GP. After all, it would take you at least ten years of full time university and further training to reach the minimum level of knowledge of a GP. A couple of hours by yourself with Dr Google just doesn’t approach the absolute minimum of 20,000 – 30,000 hours your GP has already spent in their profession.

    Your GP has the knowledge and skills to answer your questions about vaccines. Dr Google doesn’t.

    The refined knowledge gained by specialist research immunologists, such as Helen, has been passed down to more generalist medical practitioners in a more practical form. That enables those practitioners, such as your GP, or even myself, to give straightforward answers in the real world.

    Let’s try an analogy from your own profession. You appear as someone trying to discuss the effects of variance of the caster and toe angles with a truck designer before you’ve even seen a truck, when really all that is required is for you to contact an instructor and be taught how to drive.

  • These days, I am indeed a humble truck driver. Of that I am proud, and I work with decent people.

    My profession career was in IT. Whilst in London in the 90s, for approximately six years I was 2IC, in Technology, for a Footsie 100 listed, multi billion (pound) group of companies – somewhat larger, (by way of market capitalisation) than any company in New Zealand. I worked for the third largest South African company (Liberty Life), the wealthiest South African (Donald Gordon) and my judgement was trusted by some of the most powerful people on the London Stock Exchange. On arrival back in New Zealand, I ran the (technical) merger for Weltec – which was of Hutt Valley Polytechnic and Central Institute of Technology (CIT).

    That was then. We all have our story. Any event, I now choose to drive trucks (and enjoy it I might add).

    A quick note: I believe I am right in saying, that Helen is not a “research immunologist” by training, but is (by her own description) a vaccinologist. Any event (Helen), I have tremendous respect and regard for the absolute focus, grit and outright tenacity which you must have had to reach your level of knowledge and training). And for the pressures that must go with your role.

    I am unlikely to engage with you again Stuart. So, be a good chap would you, and lets leave professional put-downs where they belong; in the gutter, to be run over by trucks.

  • David,

    Advising you on answers to your question is hardly a put down.

    Neither is advising who you can easily contact to verify those answers.

    Giving reasons why relying on Google without first having the basic knowledge required to differentiate evidence-based answers from pseudoscientific fantasies isn’t putting you down either.

    And why should the use of analogy close to your own experience be denigratory?

    If you aren’t prepared to accept good advice on vaccines when you do find it on the ‘net, then please go and ask your own GP for their advice. As I said, they’ve acquired many years of knowledge and skills and have been trained as a resource person just so that others don’t have to go through similar amounts of training in order to answer those questions about vaccine safety and efficacy.

  • Helen, thank for your reply of 04/04. Whilst not a scientist or vaccinologist myself, I am intellectually intrigued by the factors and forces surrounding the whole vaccination subject; from the global companies worth tens of billions, to the good health of the everyday person on the street; from some of the highest educated people to the crazies to the far right of the ‘antivax spectrum’. All with their respective outlooks, levels of understanding, agendas, positions of power and purpose.

    It is probably fair to suggest, that the medical profession is amidst a battle for hearts and minds. Whilst there is a great deal of respect for ‘Trusting our doctor’ (we, the public do for most things), I am one of what appears to a growing volume of people for whom our doctors response is insufficient. We are wary of some aspects of vaccines. Which is why – speaking for myself – I ask questions.

    Science does have some ‘precedent warnings’ doesn’t it. Here I am thinking of Thalidomide, Thimerosal, and Mercury. Also that of nuclear bomb explosions which for several years were thought to be safe.

    The one which has always fascinated me, is that of Wegner’s Teutonic Plate theory: Originally, ridiculed by the Royal Society, the facts weren’t settled for approximately 40 years! May it not be so for adjuvants.

    I sincerely wish you immense wisdom as you tread the path through the corridors of power and politics and pressures. May you have the strength to ‘know what is right’, and not fall prey to mans fundamental weaknesses, when you are faced with the toughest decisions.

    Thank you for your blogs. They are interesting indeed. I still have a handful of questions and uncertainties. Hope you don’t mind if I ask you about them from time to time.

    Sincerely: David Bernard

    • David
      GPs generally know a bit about vaccines. Some more than others. If you dont trust your GPs opinion on a subject would you not seek the opinion from a topic expert? Like if you had a weird rash that didnt clear would you consider a dermatologist or something before becoming one yourself, or worse, going to google for a few hours then dismiss everything the dermatologist said? That is what you are doing here. I think Stuart has made the points on thalidomide etc, except I would add that it was the FDA that refused to allow the use of Thalidomide in the US. The USA never used it and avoided the horrible consequences.

      To illustrate how well the vaccine safety systems work consider the RotaShield experience. A vaccine against rotavirus that went through successful clinical trials and came into use in the US. Very quickly the safety monitoring system detected a signal of concern. The company withdrew the vaccine almost immediately even before the signal had been verified. The risk of the adverse event in question was 1 in 10,000. Many vaccine safety studies have been able to exclude additional risks of one in a million. Perhaps read around the example of RotaShield because it illustrates how a real vaccine problem was identified and what was done. There are other examples.

      Questions are great.

  • David,

    “Here I am thinking of Thalidomide, Thimerosal, and Mercury.”

    Thalidomide: marketed in 1956. Science and medicine demonstrated the problems within 5 years. Were you aware it’s still on the market for appropriate indications? (And yes, I’ve prescribed it)
    http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalidomide

    Thiomersal, mercury: (same thing…) this is no longer used in NZ vaccines – it’s needed as a preservative in multi-dose vials but NZ only uses single dose vaccines. Science and medicine show it appears to be completely safe. https://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556

    “Teutonic (sic) Plate theory: … the facts weren’t settled for approximately 40 years! May it not be so for adjuvants.”

    Actually, the facts of tectonic plate theory are still not settled. (I did geology as well as medicine.) There’s still lots of research going on to determine the mechanisms and other factors. But adjuvants have now been in use in vaccines for 70 years without any problems being demonstrated by science and medicine. Compare that with the 4 years before alarms were going off for thalidomide. (No more references because I’ll trip moderation – but many are available)

    As I said previously, relying on Dr Google, without first having the basic knowledge required to differentiate evidence-based answers from pseudoscientific fantasies, is not a good idea

  • Hi David – disclosures first up. I am an HR Manager who got there via (in reverse order) business management in NZ and the UK, trade education delivery and management in polytechnics in NZ, and an apprenticeship then practising as an automotive electrician.

    I’m a bit of a polymath. Or a jack of all trades, depending on your view.

    My interest in this subject is that it is the stomping ground of the Monsters of Doubt. This forces us to apply logic and that appeals to the side of me that trained to repair stuff powered by a force you couldn’t see.

    I view vaccines (and medicine in general) like I do any engineering subject. There are layers of undertanding and those operating at one of the lower levels are not necessarily appropriately trained to deal with stuff at higher levels – they just have to take on faith the explanations of better-trained professionals.

    I’m sure you have struck this concept in your professional life in IT.

    This relies on those at lower levels understanding and applying basic logic and simple statistical concepts. There is no point in me trying to understand what is happening at the quantum level in a diode’s pn junction – all I want to know is that the diode I am using has passed a set of statistical tests that conclude it is suitable for the application I have.

    All the vehicle owner wants to know is that their problem is fixed and it will stay fixed. They accept this because my workshop has done work for them before and it has always been successful.

    What we have now is a class of people who are self-appointing as experts in the minute detail of a subject. They argue that I should be using a different diode, or indeed just be using a special piece of wire that has been encased in natural cotton and blessed by a shaman in Detroit because the diode includes heavy metals that can leach into the atmosphere and poison the driver.

    These same types fit ‘magnetic fuel extenders” and other such unworthy devices that they then claim improves vehicle performance because they feel they know better than the vehicle manufacturer and almost all of the worlds automotive professionals.

    They assert that the vehicle manufacturers are in a secret cabal with fuel retailers and that explains why the manufacturers don’t use these magic devices.

    They tell you what extraordinary results they have got after fitting the device, but they don’t give any reliable methodology for their testing and they disregard the natural bias they have as the purchaser, fitter and user of the device.

    And so in medicine.

    You are asking good questions – I suggest that rather than requiring and trying to understand a deeply technical response, look instead for the corresponding statistical evidence. For instance, if mercury WAS a problem in vaccines, what is the statistical evidence?

    If aluminium is a problem, what is the statistical evidence? How many people in a population of vaccinated subjects have an aluminium-related side effect vs the unvaccinated population?

    If HPV vaccines have serious side effects that outweigh the benefits, where is the evidence?

  • Thank you for your response Ashton.

    You make good points, and I ‘hear you’ on suggesting that I “look for the evidence”. I dont think that I have sufficient insight into the CDC, CARM or related collection criteria, statistical inferences or processes to be able to elicit meaningful information outcomes. I wish I had. However, having worked in Public Service, I believe that I do have a good nose for inconsistencies in matters of public importance which seem to be evidentially wrong and misleading.

    Take the matter of Aluminium as a possible neuro-toxic adjuvant for example.
    The IMAC websites state categorically that Aluminium does not cause autism. “There is absolutely no evidence that..”

    This is hardly surprising, as it would appear that no such long-term research has not been undertaken !
    http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/adjuvants/Jun_2012/en/

    “The CDC has conducted no epidemiological studies on long term safety (e.g. considering neurological outcomes) of Al adjuvants.” and ” Dr Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office .. acknowledges that thimerosal is the only vaccine ingredient studied for autism or neurological safety, and that a possible association between Al adjuvants and autism has not been explored in epidemiological studies”. and Glanz 2015 states: “To date, there have been no population-based studies specifically designed to evaluate associations between clinically meaningful outcomes and nonantigen ingredients, other than thimerosal.”

    Now, this is either factually correct – or it isnt. And, if it is, it is worrying.
    http://vaccinepapers.org/review-paper-al-adjuvant-autism-20-pages-97-references/

    I did spot from a recent GACVS meeting that ” Current research on pharmacokinetics of aluminium in vaccines is ongoing and should be encouraged as a means of further validating and improving this model. Which is encouraging.

  • Better to have asked the quesktion:

    1) Has the CDC conducted any epidemiological studies on long term safety on aluminium and / or other aduvants?

    2) Did any such long-term studies consider neurological outcomes within their scope?

    3) Is it correct that thimerosal is the only vaccine ingredient for which CDC has conducted long-term studies for long term impacts / association with autism and / or neurological safety?

    Regards David

    • David
      It seems to me you have come all the way around in a circle.
      1. Pretty much all safety studies with aluminium-contains vaccines are epidemiological studies on the safety of aluminium adjuvants. Many are very long term monitoring cohorts for many years. For example population cohort studies from scandinavia and the US.
      2. Many of the largest studies have neurological outcomes as a primary outcome.
      3. No. All childhood vaccines have been assessed for any potential causal association with autism.

      That is how we know that vaccines are very safe. We have discussed this an awful lot.

      If you are going to hold up material from Vaccine Papers as evidence than you are doing exactly what Ashton and Stuart have highlighted.You clearly state none of this is your area of expertise, but you ignore the collective position held by the global science community, then you hold up material from Vaccine Papers and challenge us to prove otherwise. Have you checked the credibility of Vaccine Papers? When we point out the short comings of said argument you go back to the beginning. Can you not see this circular reasoning?

  • Thank you for reply Helen. By the sound of it, I should take it that Dr Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office is talking th and Glanz 2015 states: “To date, there have been no population-based studies specifically designed to evaluate associations between clinically meaningful outcomes and nonantigen ingredients, other than thimerosal.”

  • Thank you for reply Helen.
    By the sound of it then, it would appear that Dr Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office was talking through a hole in his bottom. I did wonder – though I am more than a little surprised ..

  • David,

    Just a few late-night thoughts –

    You might want to wonder why your source limits itself to the CDC, when vaccine studies are world-wide things, done by many different organisations, universities, etc.

    For example, there are many studies looking at vaccines v autism. Each study tackles different technical aspects that might be considered, with some extending it out to all childhood vaccines. They’ve been done by different research groups in different countries. It doesn’t make good sense to limit what you look at to just stuff done by one organisation (e.g. the CDC), or for that matter one study. You look at all research, taken together.

    So then you have to ask, why is this group trying focus it’s readers on only one group’s work, and not all the research? Perhaps because they aren’t really interested in what has actually been done (perhaps they’d rather not draw attention to that?), but are more interested in setting up a straw man? (One way is to do what’s call quote-mining; lifting words out of context: it usually pays to read the original in it’s full context.)

    More generally, you need to always remember that the wider meaningful comparison for safety is vaccine v not-vaccine. If a group tries to ask if there are any-examples-at-all of poor outcomes using vaccines are present, it’s leaving out if that was still much better than not using the vaccine. See the problem there?

    An important thing to remember in this context is that nothing you do in life is without some risk. (I’ve expanded on this somewhere on my blog… can look it up another time – late at night and I’m almost asleep as it is.) Groups pressing for “no risk at all” are setting up a comparison that ‘misses’ the wider one of if the vaccine is better than no vaccine. Of course ideally we’d like no risk at all—and serious risks from vaccines are very low—but having something that is a lot better than not using it shouldn’t be forgotten.

    More positively, I think you’ll get more out of reading, say, Seth Mnookin’s book The Panic Virus (I’ve reviewed it elsewhere on Sciblogs) than places like ‘Vaccine Papers’. Arthur Allen has a more in-depth book on the history of vaccines if you feel like knocking yourself out (it is rather long!); a short eBook can be found on the History of Vaccines website – there’s a link in my vaccine resources post on my blog.

    You might also find it useful to read Helen’s older post on how vaccines are controlled: https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2017/05/05/how-vaccines-are-controlled-and-by-whom/

  • David,

    A comment, then a request for you to elaborate.

    Earlier, you commented “I know not who you are, nor the veracity of your comments.” Which was fair enough. But then later you went on to use “Vaccine Papers” as a reference.

    The author of Vaccine Papers is infamous in their refusal to identify themselves or acknowledge any knowledge, training or research they have ever done in the field of vaccines. They are staunchly anti-vaccine. But you accepted their comments without questioning who they were or the veracity of their comments.

    It appears that you are questioning the qualifications and veracity of anyone you suspect of being “pro-vaccine”, yet accepting without question any opinion from someone who is anti-vaccine.

    This raises the spectre that you are also staunchly anti-vaccine in your approach – as Helen said, you have used circular reasoning and your opinions have not moved from the anti-vaccine questioning that you started with. That’s in spite of good evidence supplied to you.

    Could you please explain the reasons why you have not questioned the name and veracity of the author of “Vaccine Papers” in the same way that you question the names and veracity of the global science community? Why do you attribute the author of “Vaccine Papers” more authority than global experts in vaccines, even though you have absolutely no knowledge of their name, training or qualifications?

    • David,
      I think Stuart has pretty much summed it up. Anonymous internet site vs. Global scientific community.
      You have been directed by Grant to some useful reading that could help guide you in any decision making if that is genuinely what you want to do. I have asked you if you have read the paper that you have provided a quote from (I have). If you want to discuss science then we could discuss that paper and what it means.

  • Thank you for your reply Helen. Yes, I did read the entire article. I did find it somewhat odd that the site was anonymous, but I thought their reasoning seemed fair, and the material interesting. And, it seemed well referenced.

    I am not going to pursue for further response to the comments from the CDC chap, odd though they seemed. Other than to say that they seemed well referenced.

    Thank you for the book recommendations Grant, which I am going to read: Seth Mnookin and Arthur Allen. Thank you also for your comments of wisdom.

    I do have more laymans observations with respect to adjuvants, but shall redirect them to the appropriate thread (before I read the recommended book 🙂 Regards

  • Certainly. I was referring to my earlier engagement from the ‘VaccinePapers.org ‘website. Cheers

    • David,
      My point is have you read the actual paper, the one by the CDC people? You seem to be saying that the reasoning by Vaccine Papers seemed reasonable yet I am understanding that you have not actually read the paper they are referring to.

      I think if we are to discuss the science we should have the scientific paper on the table to discuss. I think you need to know the full context of that study directly from the authors mouths.

  • I think we might be at mild cross-purposes Helen. The comments I initially mentioned (by way of example) of Dr Frank DeStefano of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, which I found interesting were from this document, from the VaccinePapers.org website http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Autism-and-aluminum-adjuvants-in-vaccines.pdf

    But Hey, I shall pick the subject up again shortly, with more focus on one of your other threads. Regards

    • David,
      I think this is fairly vital point. The quote you have cited, and attributed to Frank DeStefano, appears to relate to the Glanz paper you also cited, and that I provided the link to. You appear to have have picked up this quote from an internet website and not ascertained the origin or the context. My question is have you read the Glanz paper because it would appear to be quite pivotal to this discussion.

  • Helen, you said:

    “If the vaccine indeed caused these deaths then there are several things we would expect to observe. One, these deaths should occur within a consistent time frame following the vaccine, in other words we would expect to see clusters. We don’t” Would that not have individual factors such as how many vaccines a person had previously, how much aluminium already in the brain, their individual processing etc etc

    “Two, We would expect to see a higher rate of deaths in groups who received the vaccine compared with those that have not. We don’t. “. But when the populations are being compared to groups that have received the same toxins from other HPV or other vaccines, rather than an unvaccinated population as they do, wouldn’t you anticipate statistical insignificance and masking of cause?

    “Three, we would expect to see pathological evidence identified and verified by multiple reputable pathologists. We don’t”. Rather they value their job and say “unknown”.

    • Karen,
      I think your arguments are based on a false premise – primarily that vaccines are toxic. Given that vaccines are not toxic the conclusions are also likely false.

      Would that not have individual factors such as how many vaccines a person had previously, how much aluminium already in the brain, their individual processing etc etc

      First you will need to demonstrate that aluminium in the brain under normal circumstances is associated with some kind of problem. Then you would need to demonstrated that vaccines contributed in some meaningful way to aluminium in the brain. Then you would need to make a plausible argument as to why an injection of vaccine would not cause said problem in a certain temporal association.

      But when the populations are being compared to groups that have received the same toxins from other HPV or other vaccines, rather than an unvaccinated population as they do, wouldn’t you anticipate statistical insignificance and masking of cause?

      No. Again, you would need to demonstrate toxic exposure to something before even entertaining this argument.

      Rather they value their job and say “unknown”.

      That is not an argument, it is an insult.