4 thoughts on “CDC Pushing HPV Vaccines On Older Women, Despite Risks”
Mankind had better start thinking more about others, other than their wallets or purses. Trying to push things like this on people is wrong. The oath, “Do no harm, ” was put there for a reason. How about the medical world start obeying it?
New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines.
A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how
vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a
wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead
of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a
number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and
GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum
adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.
Researchers
from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies
published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12
post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus
(HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017
peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered
evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening
injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported
after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and
Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil
9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or
concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.
Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline
placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.
Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard
for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign
patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group
and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a
new drug against a “pharmacologically inert”
placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor
researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the
placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines,
pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead
employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine
injuries.
Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used
an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine
against a neurotoxic
aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved
aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a
scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is
likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups.
Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the
most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role
as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos
appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably
unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to
mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that
received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered
numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences
between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups
allowed industry researchers and government regulators
to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold
disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the
difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this
mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of
“significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine
group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.
The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in
the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize
some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain,
they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse
events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.”
In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency
department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after
immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to
minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of
the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential
questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate
on their often-troubling findings.
There is NO safe or necessary vaccine. ALL vaccines cause brain inflammation, immune system dysfunction/suppression, DNA/Epigenetics alteration and other harms. Forced vaccination is against the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I pray Pres. Trump stops them all and thoroughly investigates corrupt pharma.
I don’t trust the flu vaccine. They keep pushing it on people just to make more money . they keep changing the formulas, you are better off getting the flu and riding it out. alkalizing the body with alkaline foods and maybe a half teaspoon a day of baking soda will kill the virus faster. Just make sure you take the baking soda at least 2 hours before or after a meal, empty stomach is best, then rest,rest ,rest.
Mankind had better start thinking more about others, other than their wallets or purses. Trying to push things like this on people is wrong. The oath, “Do no harm, ” was put there for a reason. How about the medical world start obeying it?
New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines.
A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how
vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a
wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead
of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a
number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and
GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum
adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.
Researchers
from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies
published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12
post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus
(HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017
peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered
evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening
injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported
after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and
Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil
9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or
concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.
Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline
placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.
Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard
for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign
patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group
and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a
new drug against a “pharmacologically inert”
placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor
researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the
placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines,
pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead
employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine
injuries.
Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used
an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine
against a neurotoxic
aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved
aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a
scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is
likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups.
Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the
most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role
as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos
appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably
unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to
mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that
received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered
numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences
between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups
allowed industry researchers and government regulators
to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold
disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the
difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this
mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of
“significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine
group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.
The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in
the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize
some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain,
they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse
events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.”
In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency
department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after
immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to
minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of
the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential
questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate
on their often-troubling findings.
There is NO safe or necessary vaccine. ALL vaccines cause brain inflammation, immune system dysfunction/suppression, DNA/Epigenetics alteration and other harms. Forced vaccination is against the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I pray Pres. Trump stops them all and thoroughly investigates corrupt pharma.
I don’t trust the flu vaccine. They keep pushing it on people just to make more money . they keep changing the formulas, you are better off getting the flu and riding it out. alkalizing the body with alkaline foods and maybe a half teaspoon a day of baking soda will kill the virus faster. Just make sure you take the baking soda at least 2 hours before or after a meal, empty stomach is best, then rest,rest ,rest.