News

Contact Us

Close

Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of unnecessary and sometimes dangerous HPV vaccination for girls and boys

HomeGardasilGardasil, alert, imminent risk of unnecessary...
Posted in Gardasil 2805 0 0

Translation from French:

BE CAREFUL. While many doctors, foreign and French, citizens, patients sometimes victims, have been trying to inform for many years about the uselessness and the risks of the vaccine against papillomavirus, a new offensive of the pharmaceutical lobbies led again some deputies to try to introduce it into the law of compulsory vaccination, already probably the widest in the world.

We have analyzed the benefit-risk of this vaccine originally intended for women, but boys are likely to be targeted [1] as well, and denounced several times [2][3] its uselessness coupled with its risks. in both women [4] and men. [5] The time that has passed since the FDA issued its marketing authorization in June 2006 only makes new arguments against this vaccination, the strongest of which is the increase in the number of cervical cancers in the most vaccinated populations, which should encourage these countries to follow the example of Japan and Austria and to delete the recommendation.

Attention danger, imminent risk of obligation of a vaccination of anti HPV useless, and sometimes dangerous, for the girls and boys. By Dr. Gérard Delépine, surgeon and statistician

Open letter to parliamentarians, and to all citizens.

BE CAREFUL. While many doctors, foreign and French, citizens, patients sometimes victims, have been trying to inform for many years about the uselessness and the risks of the vaccine against papillomavirus, a new offensive of the pharmaceutical lobbies led again some deputies to try to introduce it into the law of compulsory vaccination, already probably the widest in the world.

We have analyzed the benefit-risk of this vaccine originally intended for women, but boys are likely to be targeted [1] as well, and denounced several times [2][3] its uselessness coupled with its risks. in both women [4] and men. [5] The time that has passed since the FDA issued its marketing authorization in June 2006 only makes new arguments against this vaccination, the strongest of which is the increase in the number of cervical cancers in the most vaccinated populations, which should encourage these countries to follow the example of Japan and Austria and to delete the recommendation.

Attention, some MPs want to impose a vaccination that can increase the risk of cervical cancer, as proven by international publications of national cancer registries.

France is world champion in vaccine obligations. But in this area, the lobby of useless and potentially dangerous care always wants more. Thus 8 deputies [6] have just introduced a bill to create an additional vaccination obligation against papillomavirus [7]. And the very recent Elyos dinner between the president and the representatives of the pharmaceutical giants is not there to reassure us. [8).

“PARIS (Reuters) – Thirty leaders of the world’s largest pharmaceutical groups will be received Monday by Emmanuel Macron for a dinner dedicated to the attractiveness of France, before a Strategic Council of Health Industries Tuesday.
“It’s a bit the ‘Choose France’ pharmaceutical industry,” said the French Presidency, referring to the summit of attractiveness organized last January with some 140 leaders of multinationals. (…) Matignon noted in October that the sector represented 300,000 direct and indirect jobs and 53 billion euros of turnover in France and that it contributed positively to the trade balance for 7.7 billion euros “.

Do you believe in coincidences?

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LAW WHICH MAY MAKE THE GARDASIL COMPULSORY
The preamble to the bill is based on the usual arguments of pharmaceutical companies widely disseminated by the media [9][10] and their comfortably paid experts such as Dr. Monsonego [11] or Professor Descamps [12].
This preamble certainly recalls some indisputable true facts: there are more than one hundred HPV strains, the vaccines possibly protect against infection by the 4 to 9 strains included in the vaccine (only 2 to 5% of the 200 known strains), against genital warts and some dysplasias without specifying that there is no evidence that it protects against cancer. It states that some countries (USA, Sweden, Australia, Norway, Canada) achieve vaccine coverage rates that satisfy the shareholders of the vaccine manufacturers.

Be that as it may, it is extremely disturbing to read in the presentation of arguments justifying the proposed law imposing the vaccine, a number of known untruths:
“There are more than one hundred and twenty kinds of human papillomavirus (HPV), and fifteen are considered to be at high risk because they can cause cancers including HPV 16 and 18 causing 70% of infections.” But the only thing demonstrated is the statistical correlation between presence of papillomavirus and cancer, without anyone being so far able to demonstrate a direct CAUSALITY link.
“There are effective vaccines against papillomavirus. In France, current vaccines offer effective vaccination against 70% of carcinogenic HPV, and a new vaccine will soon increase this rate to 90%. ” What does MPs mean by efficiency? the vaccine is effective on the infections of strains targeted by the vaccine (only 4 to 9 of the nearly 200 listed strains) but there is no evidence that it can prevent invasive cancer let alone avoid death by this cancer. Citing Australia as a vaccine success story: “In Australia, where 80% of women and 75% of men are vaccinated, cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared” leaves you speechless, as the following presentation will show you, since in this highly vaccinated country the number of cervical cancer (as indeed the other cancers whose responsibility is attributed to HPV) continues to increase and the annual frequency of new cases does not decrease.
Finally deny the risk of serious side effects that have led to protests in many countries (Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Colombia) and legal complaints from doctors against the European Medicines Agency, dreaming about the quality of the scientific file provided to MPs and soon to senators.
WHAT SHOULD IT EXPLAIN TO PARLIAMENTARIANS?
The regular smear (every three years during periods of genital activity) better guarantor of early detection of cervical cancer.
In France, papillomavirus infection is not a real public health problem in 2018, neither for women nor for men. In women, since smear screening has been used, the annual number of deaths from cervical cancer is consistently less than 1000 in France, and the women who die are almost exclusively those who have not. not practiced every three years. We must also congratulate the minister’s commitment (albeit very late) to promote this screening, which is the only one to date that has proven effective in reducing mortality [13].
However, it should also prevent over-medicalization related to the diagnosis of ordinary papillomavirus infections but detected by systematic sampling that should be avoided! Positive, they too often lead to unnecessary surveillance by new exams and sometimes very early conisations, sometimes useless. Compliance with the indications of the conizations is necessary to avoid unjustified complications. Too much care can hurt your health!
Very low social weight of cancer of the cervix, anal cancer of man [14]
These less than 1000 deaths per year from cervical cancer, all of which could have been prevented by screening, compare with the annual burdens of lung cancer (23000 deaths), breast cancer in women (11 883 deaths), or cancer prostate (8207 deaths) [15].
In contrast to the proven efficacy of smear screening, the Gardasil or Cervarix 12-year-old vaccines have yet to prove that they are able to prevent a single invasive cancer of the cervix. the uterus and the cancer registry records even suggest that this vaccine is sometimes likely to increase the risk.
BEYOND THE INUTILITY AND NON-NEGLIGIBLE SIDE EFFECTS, THE CURRENT RECOVERY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE IMMUNIZATION SHOWS AN EFFECT CONTRARY TO THAT EXPECTED:
INSTEAD OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CANCERS IN THE COLLAR, IT INCREASES SOMETIMES

Curiously, the members who signed the bill do not talk about the proven results of the vaccine on the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, its only official justification.
Because instead of reducing the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, HPV vaccines keep it at a high level or increase it!

After 12 years of decline and more than 200 million girls vaccinated worldwide [16] for a total bill of nearly $ 100 billion paid directly or indirectly by citizens, we can indeed draw a balance of effectiveness of vaccination in two ways:
1 °) By examining the evolution of the incidence [17] (annual frequency of new cases per 100,000 women) of the invasive cancer of the cervix in each country, before and after vaccination, method already validated in 2003. [18]
2 °) Comparing the last standardized incidence world [19] to the HPV vaccination coverage rate in the different countries.
The evolution of the incidence of cervical cancer before and after vaccination with Gardasil can be traced in a perfectly reliable way in the national cancer registries controlled and published by the ministries of health of the concerned countries.
In Australia, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the incidence of cervical cancer declined by almost 50% from 12 in 1995 to 7 in 2004 (before the vaccination campaign) with a further decrease. increased mortality, thanks to smear screening and treatment progress. However, since the vaccination campaign started in 2007, there has been no further decrease in either incidence or mortality [20]. In 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer is estimated at 7.1 and cervical cancer mortality has increased by almost 15% from 1.7 in 2014 to 2 in 2017 [21][22]. ]. And our MPs quote Australian efficiency!
The Australian Ministry of Health estimates the number of new cases of cervical cancer in 912 in 2017 and 930 in 2018. Claiming, like our MPs, that “cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared” in Australia is therefore a counter-truth. ! As one can not imagine that these deputies lie voluntarily, we can conclude that they are poorly informed and that they should have checked themselves the information provided by the experts related to laboratories before distributing this “fake new” in a project of law.
In Great Britain, according to Cancer Research UK, the Office of National Statistics, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to smear screening) from 12.4 in 1995 to 9.27 in 2004. But since vaccination, there is no longer any evidence no progress, nor on the incidence stagnating from 9.3 in 2006 to 9.6 in 2015 [23] nor on the remaining 3 mortality [24].
The Australian Ministry of Health estimates the number of new cases of cervical cancer in 912 in 2017 and 930 in 2018. Claiming, like our MPs, that “cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared” in Australia is therefore a counter-truth. ! As one can not imagine that these deputies lie voluntarily, we can conclude that they are poorly informed and that they should have checked themselves the information provided by the experts related to laboratories before distributing this “fake new” in a project of law.
In Great Britain, according to Cancer Research UK, the Office of National Statistics, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to smear screening) from 12.4 in 1995 to 9.27 in 2004. But since vaccination, there is no longer any evidence no progress, nor on the incidence stagnating from 9.3 in 2006 to 9.6 in 2015 [23] nor on the remaining 3 mortality [24].
In Canada. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, the incidence of cervical cancer has decreased (through screening) from 18 in 1972 to 8.1 in 2008. But since vaccination, there has been no further progress on incidence stagnating at 8.3 in 2017 [25]
In the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER cancer statistics review, the incidence of cervical cancer increased from 14.8 in 1975 to 6.66 in 2007. But since vaccination, there has been no decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer. reached 6.68 in 2015 [26].
In Norway, according to the Cancer Registry of Norway Oslo: before vaccination, the standardized incidence had fallen sharply thanks to smear screening from 24 in 1965 to 7 in 2004. But since the vaccination, it goes up to 13.9 in 2014 and 14.9 in 2015 [27).
In Sweden, according to the National Kvalitetsregister for Cervix Cancerprevention (NKCx): before the vaccination campaign, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to screening) from 18 in 1967 to 7 in 2006 [28]. In this country, the worldwide standardized incidence of cervical cancer has increased significantly since vaccination rose to 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015 [29]. This increase is almost exclusively due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancer among women aged 23 to 49, which has reached more than 50% since 2006 (11 in 2006 versus 17 in 2015), whereas it is those who have the highest vaccination coverage rate (85%) [30].
Thus, in countries whose populations have access to smear screening, it has everywhere led to a considerable reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer (from 40 to 60%) [31]. In contrast, the introduction of vaccination has not reduced the incidence or mortality of cervical cancer, contrary to what is promised by laboratory-related physicians and by many global health authorities. And in the Nordic countries, vaccination campaigns have even been followed by an increase in the incidence of cancer.
In this comparison, France, little vaccinated, can serve as a control country. According to Public Health France, the incidence of cervical cancer in mainland France has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017 [32]. France, little vaccinated by the Gardasil, has therefore a much more satisfactory evolution for both incidence and mortality than that of the countries cited as an example by the deputies who want to impose vaccination.
Comparison of recent standardized incidences with vaccination coverage rates.
Immunization advocates claim that a high vaccination coverage rate reduces the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix. Yet the comparison of incidence and mortality rates with vaccine coverage rates shows the opposite.
In Australia, HPV vaccination coverage exceeds 85%, but in 2017 the incidence of cervical cancer is 7 and the mortality is 2
In Great Britain, despite vaccination coverage exceeding 80% [33], the incidence in 2015 was 9.6 and mortality 3
In Sweden the vaccination coverage rate is close to 75% but the incidence2015 reaches 11.49.
In the USA, in 2017 the vaccination coverage rate is 60% for a cervical cancer incidence of 6.8 and a specific mortality at 2.3.
In France, in 2017, HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%) for a cervical cancer incidence of 6 and a specific mortality of 1.7
In countries with high immunization coverage, the incidence of invasive cancers and mortality are therefore higher than in France, and the immunization obligation proposed by some members wants to eliminate this French paradox that protects our children!

RETURN ON THE DELETER EFFECTS THAT CAN DIFFICULTLY BE DENYING OUR MEMBERS!
In their preamble, the MEPs deny that Gardasil can lead (as any treatment) complications while Japan, Austria and Denmark have stopped promoting this vaccination after serious complications, sometimes even fatal and that families suffering from these vaccines organized public demonstrations in several countries of the world (Japan, Colombia, Ireland), and that Danish doctors lodged a complaint against the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which refused to answer the questions they asked. after the notification of severe neurological events not listed in the EMA registers.

In France, several complaints are in progress [34].
“Among the pathologies most frequently mentioned by the victims,” says Coubris, “include multiple sclerosis, lupus, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (inflammation of the central nervous system) and macrophage myofasciitis (a disease that results in muscle aches and pains). and chronic fatigue). A parliamentary commission of inquiry which could hear experts, citizens and independent associations of laboratories, having, from near or far, no link of interest with laboratories, would be a first step to enlighten Parliament.

IN CONCLUSION, the benefit-risk balance is not in favor of vaccination, let alone its obligation.

A compulsory health measure should not be based on faith in vaccination or hidden conflicts of interest, but on proven facts, verifiable by every citizen. However, the facts established by the official records of cancer registries show that HPV vaccination does not protect against invasive cancer of the cervix, but seems rather maintain its frequency at a high level, and sometimes even increase it.
Let us fight against this bill that threatens our children, by informing everyone, our MP, our senator, our elected officials, that no one may be unaware.

Only this work of proximity of each citizen this summer, will be able to avoid this new catastrophe of return which could be the anti-HPV vaccination, as it has been and still is the obligation of vaccination against hepatitis B [35] .

Let’s apply the precautionary principle! Let us respect the right of every human being to dispose of his body!

[6] Laure de LA RAUDIÈRE, Agnès FIRMIN LE BODO, Pierre MOREL-À-L’HUISSIER, Vincent LEDOUX, Antoine HERTH, Charles de COURSON, Christophe NAEGELEN, Meyer HABIB

[7] PROPOSITION DE LOI visant à ajouter le vaccin contre le papillomavirus sur la liste des vaccinations obligatoires déposée le 27 juin 2018

[9] Pierre Kaldy, Le Figaro S du 15/03/2018

[10] France télévision le 09/09/2016 à 10 :35

[11] Qui a réalisé des études cliniques rémunérées sur les vaccins HPV pour GSK et Merck, est ou a été consultant rémunéré pour de nombreuses sociétés pharmaceutiques, et a siégé dans les comités de conseil pour GSK, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Roche, Geneprobe ou Abbott diagnostic

[12] Qui a signé 124 conventions avec l’industrie pharmaceutique, dont 16 avec Sanofi Pasteur MSD et 3 avec GlaxoSmithKline, et a reçu en 4 ans 199 avantages financiers pour un montant de 40 550 euros, sans compter ses nombreux contrats commerciaux les plus rémunérateurs exclus par la loi de toute déclaration.

[13] Qui était néanmoins basse 3000 environ pour 65 millions de français et environ un peu plus de la moitié de femmes.

[14] Mois de trois cent décès annuels et moins de 1000 cas/an IBID référence n°6

[15] Jéhannin-Ligier K, Dantony E, Bossard N, Molinié F, Defossez G, Daubisse-Marliac L, Delafosse P, Remontet L, Uhry Z. Projection de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine en 2017. Rapport technique. Saint-Maurice : Santé publique France, 2017. 80 p

[16] L Bruni, M Diaz, L Barrionuevo-Rosas et al Global estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level : a pooled analysis Lancet Glob Health 2016 ; 4 : e453–63 www.thelancet.com/lancetgh Vol 4 July 2016

[17] Fréquence annuelle de nouveaux cas pour 100 000 femmes

[18] Lehtinen M, Paavonen J. Effectiveness of human papillomavirusvaccination. Int J STD AIDS 2003 ;14:787–92

[19] Taux standardisés monde : incidence brute rapportée une « population standard monde » pour corriger les éventuels biais liés aux particularités démographiques de chaque pays

[20] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Australasian Association of Cancer Registries 2017

[21] Cancer in Australia : in brief 2017. Cancer series no. 102. Cat. no. CAN 101. Canberra : AIHW

[22] A Cervical cancer statistics in Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018

[23] Cancer Research UK, office of national statistics

[24] Source : cruk.org/cancerstats

[25] Comité consultatif de la Société canadienne du cancer  : Statistiques canadiennes sur le cancer

2017. Toronto, ON : Société canadienne du cancer ; 2017. Disponible à www.cancer.ca/statistiques.

[26] SEER cancer statistics review 1975-2015 Table 5.2 Cancer of the Cervix Uter National Cancer Institute

[27] Cancer in Norway 2016 – Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo : Cancer Registry of Norway, 2017.

[28] Engnola G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Kejs AMT, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Khan S, Leinonen MK, Ólafsdóttir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Trykker H and Storm HH. NORDCAN : Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 7.3 (08.07.2016). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Accessed on 14.12.2016. Available from http://www.ancr.nu

[29]Nationellt Kvalitetsregister för Cervix cancerprevention (NKCx), Center för Cervixcancerprevention. : http://

nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf

[30] LARS ANDERSSON Increased incidence of cervical cancer in Sweden : Possible link with HPV vaccination Indian Journal of Medical Ethics Online First Published April 30, 2018

[31] S Vaccarella, S Franceschi, G Engholm, S Lonnberg, S Khan, F Bray 50 years of screening in the Nordic countries : quantifying the effects on cervical cancer incidence British Journal of Cancer (2014) 111, 965–969 doi : 10.1038/bjc.2014.362

[32] Francim, HCL, Santé publique France, INCa. Projections de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine en 2017 – Tumeurs solides [Internet]. Saint-Maurice : Santé publique France [mis à jour le 02/01/2018 ; consulté le 09/05/2018

[33] K Tiley and J White HPV vaccination coverage in adolescent females in England : Public Health England 2016/17

[35] Voir les nombreuses contributions du docteur et expert auprès des tribunaux, Marc Girard sur son site http://www.rolandsimion.org/?lang=fr. « N’en déplaise à l’INSERM, les risques de la vaccination contre l’hépatite B ne relèvent pas d’idées reçues germées dans le cerveau dérangé d’anti-vaccinalistes irresponsables : dès 1991, des éléments technico-scientifiques clairs, précis et concordants ont été communiqués aux autorités sanitaires par le principal fabricant, conformément à la loi. Depuis lors, celles-ci n’ont eu de cesse de les occulter ou de les falsifier pour promouvoir l’idée reçue que l’introduction de cette vaccination était un progrès « évident ».

 

 

Related Posts

Add your comment or reply. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AncoraTheme © 2016 All Rights Reserved Terms of Use and Privacy Policy