Look. Injecting anything into your bloodstream is not supported by biological indications ever. The level of screening and research demanded is massive and expensive. Now the industry has promoted a massive expansion of application for many components whose history held them below a certain threshold. That seemed to support safety but it was questioned for cause.
Now HPV has specifically caused a sharp unexpected leap in cervical cancer decades earlier than expected. I really could not ask for a superior statistical proof. If direct statistical proof can be ignored, then this industry has to go and the sooner the better.
The potential for fraud has always existed. It is becoming clearly that has been the business plan, not least because actual statistical proof is often way too hard and is certainly unnecessary in a medical emergency, for which the protocol was designed for. .
Bombshell Study Questioning HPV Vaccine Efficacy Appears as the UK’s Cervical Cancer Rates Rise in Young
january 23, 2020
- The trials’ questionable methodology generated “uncertainties” so significant that they undermine claims of efficacy.
- The ages of the women who participated in the trials were not representative of the younger adolescents who constitute HPV vaccination’s primary target groups.
- The studies used highly restrictive criteria to exclude many potential participants, limiting the trials’ “relevance and validity for real world settings.” (During Science Day presentations for the Jennifer Robi vs. Merck and Kaiser Permanente Gardasil lawsuit in January 2019, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made the same point, describing the “elite club of superheroes” who constituted the study group and noting that Merck purged anyone with the slightest vulnerabilities to the vaccine or its ingredients despite the fact that the vaccine would ultimately be marketed to girls with the very vulnerabilities excluded during the clinical trials.)
- The trials used “composite and distant surrogate outcomes” that essentially made it “impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes.” The authors explain that the surrogate outcomes used (forms of cervical dysplasia called CIN1 and CIN2) often regress on their own “and are of limited clinical concern.” They also note that different forms of cervical dysplasia each have “their own different natural histories, prevalence and incidence and strength of association with cancer.” Lumping together vastly different forms of dysplasia into the trials’ composite surrogate endpoints, therefore, was “problematic.”
- The trial investigators’ unusually frequent cervical screening of study participants likely resulted in overdiagnosis of low-grade cervical changes while overestimating the vaccines’ efficacy in preventing them. The Royal Society of Medicine authors also note that vaccine efficacy against low-grade cervical changes is no guarantee of efficacy against the higher-grade abnormalities that may contribute, along with other risk factors, to cervical cancer.
- Most damningly, the authors argue that no certainty about whether HPV vaccination prevents cervical cancer is possible, because the trials “were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”