The Royal Society of Medicine Questions the Effectiveness of the HPV Vaccine
By TLB Contributing Partner: Christina England, BA, Hons
In January 2020 The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) published a report, stating that a new analysis of the clinical trials of the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) had raised some serious doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine.
The RSM stated that:
“The analysis, carried out by researchers at Newcastle University and Queen Mary University of London, revealed many methodological problems in the design of the Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials, leading to uncertainty regarding understanding the effectiveness of HPV vaccination.”
“The researchers found that the trials were not designed to detect cervical cancer, which takes decades to develop. Women in the trials were followed up for six years or less, apart from one trial extension to just under nine years. While the researchers found evidence that vaccination prevents low grade abnormal cell changes, they said this is not clinically important because no treatment is given.”
Their full report, titled Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer, published by the Journal of the RSM on January 21, 2020, questioned the validity of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials.
Authors Claire P. Rees, Petra Brhlikova and Allyson M. Pollock stated that:
“Public health agencies promote the position that the vaccine has been shown to prevent cervical cancer. Not all routinely emphasise the limitations of the evidence or the uncertainties which we will discuss.”
Rees et al. highlighted that there are over 100 types of HPV infection, and that in reality, only 12 of these could actually cause cancer. They explained that although the chance of becoming infected with HPV is around 79%, the majority of these infections will clear up within the year.
They wrote that:
“The mechanism of progression from HPV infection to cervical cancer and its precursors is not well understood.”
“None of the trials were designed to determine efficacy or effectiveness against cervical cancer. There were no reported cases of cervical cancer in any trials; one case of vulval carcinoma was reported in the vaccinated group of FUTURE 1.
The time between first exposure to HPV and peak development of CIN3 is 7–10 years. It takes a further 10 years or so for cervical cancer to develop according to natural history studies. All trials had a mean length of follow-up of six or fewer years, apart from the HPV-023 extension with a mean follow-up of 8.9 years.”(own emphasis)
If this is true, then their information is extremely worrying, as it appears to be in stark contrast to what parents are being advised by the World Health Organization (WHO).
This is because the WHO stated on their website that:
“Vaccinate 9 to 13-year-old girls with two doses of HPV vaccine to prevent infection with the Human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. The reduced, 2-dose schedule has been shown to be as effective as the current 3-dose schedule. The change will make it easier to administer the vaccine. In addition, it reduces the cost, which is particularly important for low- and middle-income countries where national health budgets are constrained but where the need for HPV vaccine is the greatest. Today, girls in more than 55 countries are protected by routine administration of HPV vaccine. Encouragingly, a growing number of low- and middle-income countries are introducing HPV vaccine in the routine schedule, with support from the GAVI Alliance.” (own emphasis)
According to the WHO:
“WHO’s updated cervical cancer guidance can be the difference between life and death for girls and women worldwide.” (own emphasis)
However, Rees and her team disagree, because they believe that the trials were too short and were not aimed at the correct target groups.
If their information is correct, then when the HPV vaccination was approved by the FDA in 2006, the manufacturers had absolutely no idea whether or not the vaccination could prevent cervical cancer or not.
Dr. Rees and her team stated that:
“Females in the trials are typically older than those in real-life vaccine programmes, and it is unclear whether their outcomes are similar. We do not know efficacy rates in girls aged between 9 and 13 years.”
They concluded their report by advising policy makers that they should:
“Establish national baseline epidemiological data on cancer incidence, mortality and HPV subtype prevalence to support evidence based decisions about whether the currently available vaccines are likely to be cost-effective and should be a priority.
Ensure that cancer surveillance and registries are in place before any vaccination programme is implemented so that changes in incidence of cervical cancer and its precursors can be studied.
Initiate national long-term efficacy and effectiveness studies that are free of industry funding, focus on clinically meaningful outcomes, and enrol and analyse the vaccine target populations.”
It appears that Rees and her team are not alone in their beliefs.
In September 2017, controversial filmmakers Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment launched part one of their three-part documentary written by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss, titled Sacrificial Virgins.
During their film, the team interviewed several scientists, all of whom had researched the HPV vaccination, with many of them echoing similar concerns.
I asked several of the scientists who had appeared in this film whether or not they believed that the vaccination should be stopped.
Dr. Christian Fiala, specialist in obstetrics and gynecology stated that:
“No one has shown that the HPV vaccine actually reduces the rate of cervical cancer.”
Professor Peter Duesberg, molecular biologist, stated that:
“Of course it should be stopped until they have proved that it protects against cancer.”
Neurologist Dr. Hirokuni Beppu stated:
“It is not useful. The HPV vaccine is useless because it has a very low risk benefit balance and we cannot differentiate those people who have risk to this vaccine.”
With scientists working around the clock to develop a new vaccination for the coronavirus and many of them promising to have a vaccine ready by the end of the year. One has to wonder exactly how their trials will determine the effectiveness of this vaccine. Especially since it has taken scientists fourteen years to discover that the trials for the HPV vaccination were in fact inadequate.
Parting Shot …
About the Author: Christina England, BA Hons, Research Journalist and Author
Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. She left school to work in a children’s library, specialising in storytelling and book buying. In 1978, Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980.
After taking an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Support, Ms. England spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She gained a Higher National Diploma in Journalism and Media Studies in 2010 and in 2016 she gained a BA Hons degree in Literature and Humanities. She currently writes for VacTruth, Health Impact News, GreenMedInfo, The Liberty Beacon, Vaccine Impact and Medical Kidnap on immunisation safety and efficacy.
She has co-authored the book – Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon. She also compiled the book Shattered Dreams: The HPV Vaccine Exposed
Her website is Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.