By Sandy Lunoe – VacTrutrh -
When we see the term “cancer vaccine” in connection with the HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine Gardasil we may naturally assume that it prevents cervical cancer, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. (1) On the contrary, the term is incorrect because unbelievable though it may sound Gardasil may actually cause cancer. This fact is being ignored by Merck the manufacturer and other promoters including doctors and health authorities.
Information in the package insert states that the vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenicity. (2) Why has this not been done? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! There appears to be no official requirement for vaccines to be tested for carcinogenicity and no incentive for manufacturers to do so. Many experts consider that vaccines are conducive towards the dramatic worldwide increase in cancer cases.
A normal phenomenon in virology is that virus strains which have been removed are replaced by new ones. It is not known by anyone, including the vaccine manufacturer whether the new virus strains are more carcinogenic than the original ones which have been removed.
The chief editor of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, immunologist Charlotte Haug writes about several unanswered questions including that of replacement in her article “We Need to Talk about HPV Vaccination – Seriously”:
Abhorred vacuum.There is another serious question that may be answered sooner: what effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?
Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18. The results are not statistically significant, but if the trend is real – and further clinical trials should tell us in a few years – there is reason for serious concern. (3)
In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine “ Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination – Reasons for Caution”, Dr. Haug again poses the question of replacement:
“How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes”. (4)
Replacement was obviously one of several unanswered questions when FDA, Merck and the Norwegian government signed a contract which involved research studies on thousands of young Norwegian schoolgirls. The agreement was that Gardasil would be approved in US under the condition that extensive research projects were carried out in Norway. There was implication of corruption in connection with introduction of Gardasil in the childrens’ vaccination program. (5)
The contract includes this statement from FDA to Merck:
“You have committed to conduct a study in collaboration with the Norwegian Government, if GARDASIL is approved in the European Union and the Government of Norway incorporates HPV vaccination into its national guidelines, to assess the impact of HPV vaccination on the following in Norway … to assess whether administration of GARDASIL will result in replacement of these diseases due to vaccine HPV types with diseases due to non-vaccine HPV types.” (6)
It is worrying to note that many cases of abnormal Pap smears, cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer are registered after Gardasil vaccination. Reports from VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System regarding HPV vaccines are regularly published by SaneVax.(7) The numbers registered with VAERS may be as low as one percent of the actual cases.
One of the most disturbing observations which deserves serious investigation concerns the considerable potential increase in risk of cancer after Gardasil vaccination for those who have been pre- exposed to the human papilloma virus. Sanevax writes:
Peer-reviewed analysis and studies many of them on the FDA, NCI and CDC web sites point out the dangers of many of the vaccine ingredients including the potential for the HPV vaccines to increase the risk for pre-cancerous lesions if adolescents have been previously exposed to the human papillomavirus and then get vaccinated: 44.6% increase post Gardasil.
Judicial Watch writes in their Special Report “Examining The FDA’s HPV Vaccine Records”:
A chart in the committee’s report revealed that efficacy in subjects already exposed to “relevant HPV types” had an observed efficacy rate of -44.6%. The disturbing efficacy rate raises questions as to who should be receiving the vaccine, and why the FDA allows Gardasil to be administered without prescreening for HPV. The outcomes that can result from pre-exposure are disconcerting and deserve far more attention.(8)
It is dangerous and unethical of promoters to recommend Gardasil when it is unknown whether there has been prior exposure to HPV infection. In an obvious attempt to encourage thousands of young people to get vaccinated with Gardasil it is widely published that the vaccine should be given prior to sexual relations because HPV infection is sexually transmitted. This is not necessarily the case. The promoters hide the fact that HPV may be transmitted from mother to child and has been detected in the placenta and in umbilical cord blood.(9)
The recent discovery of yet one more potentially cancer causing element connected to Gardasil sent shock waves across the world. This is the story which lead to its discovery:
A sexually naive girl developed acute juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at age 13 within 24 hours after the third Gardasil injection and her blood sample – tested two years later – was found to be positive for HPV DNA by a local clinical laboratory. On request for more information by her mother the Sanevax team contracted an independent laboratory for analysis of 13 samples of Gardasil, all from different lots.
The results showed that all the samples contained recombinant (genetically modified) HPV DNA which was firmly attached to the aluminium adjuvant. (10) The consequences of the presence of recombinant HPV DNA which is considered a biohazard are unknown and may be horrific. The pathologist Dr. Lee stated:
“Based on medical literature and some of the FDA/Merck’s own publications, adventitious (coming from an outside source) DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies.” (10)
Merck’s Gardasil product inserts stated “No viral DNAs in the vaccine” – until April 2011 when the line was glaringly absent from U.S. product inserts. (10)
It is shocking to see that FDA admits that it is generally impossible to remove DNA contaminants from vaccines. (11)
On contacting the authorities about the worrying discovery of recombinant HPV DNA in Gardasil, Sanevax received a prompt reply from the Department of Health referring to a statement by the CHMP (European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) that the presence of recombinant DNA fragments does not represent a case of contamination and is not considered to be a risk to vaccine recipients. (12) No supporting documentation whatsoever has been provided to support this statement! It is reasonable to assume that the vaccine would not have gained approval had the manufacturers informed the authorities of the presence of the aluminum bound gene manipulated DNA due to potential health risks.
The following issues which may be connected to increase of cancer risk should have been seriously addressed and results from unbiased studies presented before the vaccine was approved:
These important studies have not been presented. Gardasil should therefore immediately be withdrawn from the market until satisfactory documentation has been provided.
When vaccine critics maintain that the vaccine is dangerous and that it should never have been approved the response from promoters is often a request for evidence of proof to support the statements. “It is not vaccine critics who must provide evidence that vaccines are dangerous; it is the vaccine promoters’ responsibility to prove that vaccines are safe and effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks.” – Marcella Piper-Terry