Behind every vaccine is an assumption. That HPV causes cervical cancer, that cervical cancer causes death, and that a vaccine can effectively interfere with this linear relationship is the assumption to be examined in this article. Cervarix is a vaccine recommended to girls beginning as early as 9 years old, intended to protect against HPV strains 16 and 18 upon completion of a 3 dose series. It is an aluminum-containing product, with notable “immunogenicity”.
A new GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) funded study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases has revealed that HPV infection, resulting in naturally acquired human papilloma virus (HPV) antibodies, reduces the risk for new infection and cervical abnormalities linked to cancer in non-HPV vaccinated subjects.
A new study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reveals that, despite increasing uptake of human papillomavirus (HVP) vaccines, cancers linked to HPV rose in the past decade.
The report, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, was co-authored by researchers from the American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR), and found that while overall cancer death rates in the U.S. continue to decline among both men and women over the past decade, incidence rates are actually increasing for HPV-associated oral, vulva and anal cancers.
As reported by Fierce Vaccines, this finding may “irk HPV vaccine makers Merck and GlaxoSmithKline,” whose vaccines have been adopted and lauded by national and global health authorities as safe and effective, ‘live saving' interventions.
Obviously, if the report is correct, and by …
According to the CDC's website, there are over 100 forms of HPV that have been identified thus far, with the vaccine only protecting (in theory) against four, namely, HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18. Nor does vaccination speed the clearance of pre-existing HPV 16/18 infection, making Dr. Harper's point about the prevalence of HPV infection in those younger than 11 all the more poignant. So, how effective can a 2-4 strain vaccine possibly be even if it works 100% of the time against them?
The answer is of course: not very effective. And nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the case of African-American girls and women…
Only two months ago, a groundbreaking but virtually unknown report on the National Library of Medicine's health information portal Medline Plus, revealed a disturbing fact about the HPV vaccine, and the institutionalized ‘color blindness' in biomedicine today that is having significant adverse impacts on minority populations. Researchers from Duke University found that although African-American women are twice as likely as Caucasian women to die from cervical cancer, HPV vaccines target strains of HPV that are far less likely to infect them, and are not found in the most concerning precancerous abnormalities.
As reported by Afro.com:
The study examined 280 Black women and 292 White women, all carrying varying HPV strains. Some had no signs of cancer, some showed mild signs of pre-cancer and a small percentage had advanced precancerous abnormalities. In the group with the most advanced signs of pre-cancer, White participants carried strains 16, 18, 33, 39, and 59, whereas Black participants carried strains 31, 35, 45, 56, 58, 66, and 68.
Could this explain why rates of cervical cancer actually increased in African-American populations, according to the new NCI report?
When a vaccine is being used that forces the immune system of black girls or women to produce antibodies and mobilize immune defenses against HPV strains that are not contributing to the pathogenesis of the presumed ‘vaccine preventable' disease, not only does this waste valuable immune resources that would be useful elsewhere, but it focuses the immune system towards a non-existent threat and away from the real one. Obviously, vaccines that produce antibodies without antigen-antibody affinity are not only useless, but harmful. And this does not even account for the multiple, unintended, adverse effects of the other vaccine ingredients (e.g. adjuvants; biologicals) found within the shot.
Shouldn't these two studies confirm that at the very least, African-American populations should refrain from HPV vaccines until further evidence is provided that they are safe and effective? Is this not basic to the precautionary principle, especially when it comes to an unnecessary medical intervention? Shouldn't the burden of proof of safety and efficacy be upon those manufacturing, selling, regulating the product and not the exposed populations who increasingly are being told they have little to no choice in the matter?
If we are to establish safety and efficacy in the realm of a pharmaceutical product that is delivered to all individuals without regard for genetics, pre-existing conditions such as autoimmunity, inflammatory or neuroendocrine status, it is essential that vaccinated versus unvaccinated (without delivering adjuvants such as aluminum as a control) long-term trials be undertaken. The grounds for dismissal of this most basic clinical trial are steeped in propaganda such as “vaccines are safe and effective, such that withholding them is an unethical assault on public health”. Perhaps it’s time for us to truly see how safe and effective they are by engaging in basic scientific methodology. We might find that everything we thought was true, is far from it.
Please Read this Article at NaturalBlaze.com