Category Archives: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine

International Medical Researchers Issue Warning about HPV Vaccine Side Effects

Further to my previous post Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014.

SaneVax reports the international symposium and associated events have “sparked a high-profile debate over HPV vaccine safety, efficacy and need…”

Read more on the Sanevax website.

Adverse events after HPV vaccination – international symposium held in Japan, February 2014

dreamstime_xs_17754200A recent SaneVax release reports: Breaking news from Japan: International symposium on the adverse reactions experienced by those vaccinated with human papillomavirus vaccines

Well done to SaneVax for their efforts in helping organise this international symposium, and for their support for people who have suffered adverse events after HPV vaccination.

It’s time for an investigation into the government lobbying and aggressive global marketing for this very questionable and experimental vaccine product.  See Over-vaccination.net’s webpage on HPV vaccination for more background.

Vaccination – a climate change commentator enters the fray…

Professor Clive Hamilton, a commentator on the climate change debate, has taken it upon himself to draw parallels with dissent on vaccination practice in his article “Climate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion”, published on the university and CSIRO funded The Conversation website.

The Conversation promises “we only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise…” but what expertise does Clive Hamilton have on the subject of vaccination/immunisation?  There is no indication of any expertise in this area in his profile on The Conversation website.

Gardasil-vaccine-0071See below my email response to Professor Hamilton, including reference to questionable HPV vaccination.  My email has also been copied to a variety of other parties with an interest in this matter, including Andrew Jaspan, Executive Director and Editor of The Conversation, and Professor Ian Frazer, co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines and his colleagues at the Australian Academy of Science.

___________________

From: Elizabeth Hart <eliz.hart25@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Your article on The Conversation referring to vaccination / immunisation

Professor Hamilton, re your article “Climate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion”, published on The Conversation today, and your comment: “Scientifically there is no debate about immunisation, with every relevant health authority strongly endorsing vaccination.”

Are you aware that ‘vaccination’ and ‘immunisation’ are not the same?

Are you suggesting that citizens are not entitled to challenge ‘health authorities’ on the implementation of individual vaccine products of questionable value, e.g. human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines? 

On the subject of HPV vaccination, (which is currently implemented for boys and girls 10-15 years in Australia)[1], the Gardasil HPV vaccine was originally rejected by the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in 2006.  

An article published in The Australian newspaper at the time, “Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill”, reports the PBAC rejected Gardasil because it was “too expensive and, just maybe, not what it was cracked up to be anyway”.  According to the article, Tony Abbott, then the Australian Federal Health Minister “took to the airwaves, passing on PBAC’s concerns about the efficacy of Gardasil and even floating the bizarre idea that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.”[2]

According to Matthew Stevens’ report in The Australian, it took just 24 hours for the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to “put an end to the nonsense”, delivering “sparkling prime ministerial endorsement to Gardasil along with a clear direction to Minister Abbott that the immunisation program should proceed.  And pronto.”[3]

In her report “Government response to PBAC recommendations”, Marion Haas provides some commentary on the Australian government’s interference with the PBAC’s initial rejection of Gardasil, noting the then Prime Minister, John Howard, “intervened personally by announcing that the drug would be subsidised (ie listed) as soon as the manufacturer offered the right price.  The PBAC subsequently convened a special meeting and recommended that Gardasil be listed on the PBS”[4] (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

Haas notes the main objectives “of the PBAC are to consider the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medicines in making recommendations to government regarding the listing of drugs for public subsidy.  A perceived willingness to interfere in this process may undermine these objectives…”  Government reaction which results in reversal of PBAC decisions has “the potential to send signals to manufacturers and lobby groups that a decision made by the PBAC may be reversed if sufficient public and/or political pressure is able to be brought to bear on the PBAC…this may undermine the processes used by the PBAC to determine its recommendations and hence the perceived independence of the PBAC.”[5] 

Getting a vaccine on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme must be the ‘golden goose’ for vaccine manufacturers as this assures a mass market for their vaccine product.  Other countries have also adopted HPV vaccination, impacting on millions of children around the world and resulting in multi millions of dollars’ worth of sales for Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)[6], and royalties for entrepreneurial scientist Ian Frazer from sales of HPV vaccines in developed countries[7], and for CSL which receives royalties from sales of Gardasil.[8].

In his article published on The Conversation in July 2012, HPV vaccine technology co-inventor Ian Frazer acknowledges that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low, i.e. “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.”[9]

The National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) website notes: “HPV infection is very common and in most people it clears up naturally in about 8-14 months…Genital HPV is so common that it could be considered a normal part of being a sexually active person.  Most people will have HPV at some time in their lives and never know it…A few of the many types of HPV have been linked with causing abnormalities of the cervix and in some cases the development of cancer of the cervix.”  The NCSP website highlights that: “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer.”[10]

Since the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Program, the mortality from cervical cancer has halved.[11]

Given the low risks associated with the HPV virus, the Australian government’s role in over-turning the PBAC’s original rejection of the lucrative Gardasil vaccine, and the lobbying involved, should be subjected to scrutiny.  My open letter to Chris Mitchell, Editor-in-Chief of The Australian, includes more information on this matter, ie: Is universal HPV vaccination necessary?  (8 October 2012.)

Professor Hamilton, people such as yourself, with your ill-informed and unhelpful generalised comments about the complex area of vaccination/immunisation are impeding transparency and accountability for the Australian government’s implementation of questionable vaccine products.  Given your position as a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, perhaps you should think more carefully before wading in on a matter on which you so obviously know little about.

Note:  I had planned to post this response on your article on The Conversation today, but I see that comments have already closed.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

References:

1.     National Immunisation Program Schedule from 1 July 2013: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn

2.     Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill. The Australian, 11 November, 2006: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/howard-rescues-gardasil-from-abbott-poison-pill/story-e6frg9lx-1111112503504

3.     Ibid.

4.     Haas, Marion. “Government response to PBAC recommendations”. Health Policy Monitor, March 2007: http://hpm.org/en/Surveys/CHERE_-_Australia/09/Government_response_to_PBAC_recommendations.html

5.     Ibid.

6.     FierceVaccines special report on the 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012 states that H1 2012 sales for Gardasil (Merck) were $608 million, and sales for Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) were $285 million: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

7.     “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568  The disclosure statement on this article by Ian Frazer states: “Ian Frazer as co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines receives royalties from their sale in the developed world.”

8.     CSL ups profit guidance on Gardasil sales. The Australian, 27 November 2012: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/csl-ups-profit-guidance-on-gardasil-sales/story-fn91v9q3-1226524726672#

9.  “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

10.     HPV (human papillomavirus), National Cervical Screening Program, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/hpv

11.  Key Statistics. National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/facts

More re conflicts of interest and ‘the science of immunisation’…

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Since December 2012 I have sought potential conflict of interest disclosures for academics associated with the Australian Academy of Science publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”.

See my previous posts on this subject published in May 2013 and August 2013.

On 12 November 2013, I forwarded another email on this matter to Professor Suzanne Cory, President of the Australian Academy of Science, saying:

Professor Cory

Re my previous questions about possible conflicts of interest of members of the Academy’s Science of Immunisation Working Group and Oversight Committee, and my request for disclosure statements.  (Refer to email thread below.)

It is now nearly a year since I forwarded my first enquiry to you in December 2012.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, I suggest any potential conflicts of interest of members of the Working Group and Oversight Committee should be disclosed on the Academy’s Immunisation webpage: http://www.science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html   I believe this would be in accordance with The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, in particular sections 4.9 “Disclose research support accurately” and 7.2 “Conflicts of interest”: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf

I have also copied the incoming President of the Academy, Professor Andrew Holmes, in this email.

Professor Cory, given the inordinate delay, I request your urgent email response on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

On 14 November 2013, I received the following response from Dr Martin Callinan, Director Science Policy Section of the Australian Academy of Science:

Hi Elizabeth,

Thanks for your email. As discussed, including when we most recently spoke, the Academy is in the process of establishing Register of Interests to cover all our activities. Involving database, website and management system upgrades, this process has been underway for more than a year. We anticipate it being operational in March 2014. As with almost all non-government, not-for-profit organisations, our infrastructure is modest, dated and resources are increasingly scarce. We do our best.

In response to your first email, I quite agreed with you about transparency and current standards. At any one time, we have many projects and activities underway that involve 100+ Fellows and experts, all of whom contribute their time on a pro bono basis. I can assure you we are addressing our organisational need for due disclosure. It is a large systematic process being undertaken with available resources. As promised, as soon as I have a publication date I’ll give you a call to let you know in advance.

regards

martin

The lack of transparency to date on potential conflicts of interest of academics involved in Australian Academy of Science projects and activities is a serious omission.

As we are now approaching the end of January 2014, it will be interesting to see if the Australian Academy of Science’s ‘register of interests’ will finally be operational in March 2014.

 

The Conversation – a marketing arm for the university and research sector?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????The university and CSIRO-funded The Conversation website(1) publishes articles promoting vaccination, but appears reluctant to provide critical analysis on the worth of individual vaccine products. Indeed critical analysis of vaccines seems to be limited to comments on articles, often by members of the general public.

The dearth of critical analysis of individual vaccines is a major failing on The Conversation website(2), particularly as the university and research sector has a vested interest in promoting lucrative vaccine products, e.g. the controversial HPV vaccine(3).  This lack of objectivity undermines trust in The Conversation(4).

The Conversation claims to be “an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community” introducing “new protocols and controls to help rebuild trust in journalism”, and believing in “open access and the free-flow of information.(4) The Conversation states: “We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Failure to do so carries a risk of being banned from contributing to the site.”(4)

Given its promise to be “an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community”(4)The Conversation’s support of the Stop the Australian (Anti) Vaccination Network (SAVN)(5) bears investigation.   The SAVN is a stalwart defender of mandated vaccination and will brook no dissent.  While the SAVN’s raison d’etre is ostensibly to oppose the controversial Australian Vaccination Network(6) and its spokesperson Meryl Dorey, in practice SAVN supporters have taken it upon themselves to stifle and patronise anybody who dares to question vaccination practice in any way, as can be seen in The Conversation discussion threads listed below.(7)

Rachael Dunlop is an administrator of the SAVN Facebook page(8), and Vice President of Australian Skeptics Inc(9).  Her articles on vaccination are published on The Conversation.  Contrary to The Conversation’s assurance that “we only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise”(4), Rachael Dunlop’s profile on The Conversation website(10) provides no indication that she has “proven expertise” in the wide range of vaccine products on the Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule(11).  While Rachael Dunlop is given carte blanche to publish her opinions on vaccination on The Conversation(12), others of us relegated to the comments section are intimidated by the threat of censorship.  For instance two of my comments were censored on Rachael Dunlop’s article A view on: vaccination myths(13).

In his support for The Conversation, Professor Peter Doherty, Nobel Laureate, says: “The whole motivation behind this was to open communication between people in our universities and institutes of higher education and the general public…None of us want to live in an ivory tower, we all want to be part of society.  So how do we do that?  It has been difficult to do that in conventional newspaper and media formats because they have their own priorities.  So we started The Conversation…”(14)

Given The Conversation’s general reluctance to critically analyse individual vaccine products, cynics might wonder if The Conversation has its own priorities’, principally to do with selling the products of the university and research sector?   Is The Conversation merely a marketing arm for the university and research sector?

Vaccines of questionable value are being added to national vaccination schedules.  Mass populations of children are being vaccinated against diseases which may never pose a serious threat for them, e.g. human papillomavirus(15).  It is questionable whether ‘informed consent’ is being properly obtained before these medical interventions.

Vaccine products are being developed for more and more diseases e.g. novovirus(16), chlamydia(17), skin cancer(18), herpes(19), HIV(20), malaria(21) etc, etc, yet nobody has any idea of the long term cumulative effect of all these medical interventions, or ‘unintended consequences’ for disease development, consider for example the possible implications of genotype replacement with HPV vaccination(22); vaccine-related reassortment of rotavirus(23); HBV S protein mutations after vaccination(24); and increasing selection among the B. pertussis population in Australia in favor of strains carrying prn2 andptxP3 under the pressure of acellular vaccine–induced immunity(25).

Aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical industry and industry-affiliated ‘experts’, including lobbying for compulsory vaccination with vaccines of dubious value, is threatening citizens’ autonomy.  It seems we are now expected to meekly accept every vaccine product manufactured by the vaccine industry.  

The increasingly lucrative vaccine industry benefits from the oppressive climate that has developed on the subject of vaccination.

The potential conflicts of interests of academics working in the areas of vaccine development and promotion, and the influence of these academics on government policy, needs to be examined.  It’s time there was an investigation into the relationships between governments, the vaccine industry, and the industry’s handmaidens in the scientific/medical establishment, but who can we trust to do that?  The mainstream media has generally been completely useless on this matter, and incapable of providing critical analysis, merely supporting the status quo(26), likewise The Conversation.

Citizens must be allowed to have a rational debate on this important subject to ensure public confidence in vaccination practice.  All vaccination recommendations must be transparently evidence-based.

It’s time for The Conversation to lift its game on this subject and provide some objective critical analysis of individual vaccine products, and the lucrative international vaccine market.

For discussion on controversial vaccine products see:  

I have provided critical comment(27*) on a number of The Conversation’s articles pertinent to vaccination, see list below:  

References: (Links current as at 12 November 2013.)

1. Partners and funders of The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/au/partners

2. Our charter – The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/au/our_charter

3. Also refer to Ian Frazer. Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot! The Conversation 10 July 2012: http://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

4. Who we are – The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/au/who_we_are

5. Stop the Australian (Anti) Vaccination Network Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/stopavn

6. Australian Vaccination Network: http://avn.org.au/

7. This has been my personal experience – see responses to Elizabeth Hart on The Conversation discussion threads listed above.  As far as I am aware, editors at The Conversation have done little to address concerns about vaccines of questionable value such as the controversial HPV vaccinethe arbitrary second dose of the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) live vaccineannual flu vaccination and controversial ‘gain of function research’; or pertussis ‘boosters’ of the existing vaccine against the new strain.

8. The disclosure statement on Rachael Dunlop’s article “A view on: vaccination myths” on The Conversation, 28 May 2013, notes that she is “an administrator of the Stop the AVN Facebook page”: https://theconversation.com/a-view-on-vaccination-myths-14699

9. Australian Skeptics: http://www.skeptics.com.au/contact/nsw/

10. Rachael Dunlop’s profile on The Conversation website http://theconversation.com/profiles/rachael-dunlop-4133/profile_bio

11. Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule: http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips-ctn

12. Rachael Dunlop. Six myths about vaccination – and why they’re wrong. The Conversation, 26 April 2013: http://theconversation.com/six-myths-about-vaccination-and-why-theyre-wrong-13556

13. Rachael Dunlop. A view on: vaccination myths. The Conversation, 28 May 2013: https://theconversation.com/a-view-on-vaccination-myths-14699

14. Peter Doherty: Why I support The Conversation. Video on Who we are – The Conversation, quote starting at 0.30: https://theconversation.com/au/who_we_are

15. In an article on the university and CSIRO-funded The Conversation website, titled “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Professor Ian Frazer states: “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”.  If only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells”, is it really justifiable to coerce mass populations of children to have HPV vaccination, particularly as the long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are unknown?  Refer to this link for further background: https://over-vaccination.net/questionable-vaccines/hpv-vax/

16. Takeda’s norovirus vaccine misses endpoint in early-phase trial. FierceVaccines, 7 October 2013: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/story/takedas-norovirus-vaccine-misses-endpoint-early-phase-trial/2013-10-07

17. Igietseme JU, Eko FO, Black CM. Chlamydia vaccines: recent developments and the role of adjuvants in future formulations. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2011 Nov;10(11):1585-96: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043957

18. Professor Ian Frazer close to creating skin cancer vaccine. News.com.au, 31 July 2011: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/skin-cancer-vaccine-hope/story-fn5fsgyc-1226105179167

19. Allied Healthcare’s herpes simplex vaccine trial under way. 17 October 2013: http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/49190/allied-healthcares-herpes-simplex-vaccine-trial-under-way-49190.html

20. Breakthrough in hunt for HIV vaccine as scientists capture ENV protein. News.com.au, 2 November 2013: http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/breakthrough-in-hunt-for-hiv-vaccine/story-fn5fsgyc-1226751689734

21. New malaria vaccine has its flaws, but it’s better than nothing. The Conversation, 9 October 2013: https://theconversation.com/new-malaria-vaccine-has-its-flaws-but-its-better-than-nothing-19020

22. Pons-Salort M et al. Exploring individual HPV coinfections is essential to predict HPV-vaccination impact on genotype distribution: a model-based approach. Vaccine. 2013 Feb 6;31(8):1238-45: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23246257

23. Tatiana Lundgren Rose et al. Evidence of vaccine-related reassortment of rotavirus, Brazil, 2008-2010. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Volume 19, Number 11 – November 2013: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/11/12-1407_article.htm

24. Bian T et al. Change in hepatitis B virus large surface antigen variant prevalence 13 years after implementation of a universal vaccination program in China. J. Virol. 2013 Nov;87(22):12196-206: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24006443

25. Sophie Octavia et al. Newly emerging clones of Bordetella pertussis carrying prn2 and ptx3 alleles implicated in Australian pertussis epidemic in 2008-2010. J Infect Dis. (2012) 205 (8): 1220-1224: http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/205/8/1220

26. For example, the Murdoch media’s aggressive “No Jab, No Play” campaign contributes to the oppressive climate surrounding vaccination – “Big win for No Jab, No Play as NSW state cabinet approves tough new vaccination laws”. The Telegraph, 29 May 2013. In this climate it is difficult to raise legitimate questions about vaccination practice, e.g. questioning arbitrary revaccination of all children with the live measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine, as most children are likely to be immune after age appropriate vaccination with an effective first dose of this vaccine.

27. Elizabeth Hart, Independent Vaccine Investigator.  Comments on The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/profiles/elizabeth-hart-6978/activities  (*Edited to include additional articles 24 June 2014.)

HPV vaccine promotion and government interference

 

hThe co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, Professor Ian Frazer, has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low.[1]  Yet mass populations of children around the world are being coerced into HPV vaccination, while the long-term consequences of these vaccines are unknown.

We need an investigation into why these questionable vaccines are being mass-marketed, and the lack of adequate ‘informed consent’ before this medical intervention.

Let’s start by demanding an investigation into how the Gardasil HPV vaccine was fast-tracked onto the Australian vaccination schedule in 2007.

The archived fact sheet on the Australian Government Funding of Gardasil states “The Government has agreed with the recommendation of its expert advisory committee, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), that GARDASIL should be funded under the National Immunisation Program, commencing in the 2007 school year…”[2]

However the Gardasil HPV vaccine was originally rejected by the PBAC in 2006.  An article in The Australian at the time, “Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill”, reports the PBAC rejected Gardasil because it was “too expensive and, just maybe, not what it was cracked up to be anyway”.  According to the article, Tony Abbott, then the Australian Federal Health Minister “took to the airwaves, passing on PBAC’s concerns about the efficacy of Gardasil and even floating the bizarre idea that a misplaced confidence in the effectiveness of the vaccine might actually result in “an increase in cancer rates”.”[3]

According to Matthew Stevens’ report in The Australian, it took just 24 hours for the then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to “put an end to the nonsense”, delivering “sparkling prime ministerial endorsement to Gardasil along with a clear direction to Minister Abbott that the immunisation program should proceed. And pronto.”[4]

In her report “Government response to PBAC recommendations”, Marion Haas also provides some commentary on the Australian government’s interference with the PBAC’s initial rejection of Gardasil, noting the then Prime Minister, John Howard, “intervened personally by announcing that the drug would be subsidised (ie listed) as soon as the manufacturer offered the right price.  The PBAC subsequently convened a special meeting and recommended that Gardasil be listed on the PBS”[5] (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).

Haas notes the main objectives “of the PBAC are to consider the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medicines in making recommendations to government regarding the listing of drugs for public subsidy.  A perceived willingness to interfere in this process may undermine these objectives…”  Government reaction which results in reversal of PBAC decisions has “the potential to send signals to manufacturers and lobby groups that a decision made by the PBAC may be reversed if sufficient public and/or political pressure is able to be brought to bear on the PBAC…this may undermine the processes used by the PBAC to determine its recommendations and hence the perceived independence of the PBAC.”[6] 

After the Australian government’s interference in this matter, other countries adopted HPV vaccination, resulting in multi millions of dollars’ worth of sales for the makers of the HPV vaccines, i.e. Merck (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix)[7], and royalties for Ian Frazer from sales of HPV vaccines in developed countries[8].

Ian Frazer has acknowledged that the risk of cancer associated with the HPV virus is very low[9].  Since the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Program, the mortality from cervical cancer has halved.[10]  Given the low risks associated with the HPV virus, the Australian government’s role in over-turning the PBAC’s original rejection of the Gardasil vaccine, and the lobbying involved, should be subjected to scrutiny.

It’s time for an investigation into the establishment of the lucrative international market for the questionable HPV vaccines.

For further background refer to my previous post “Is universal HPV vaccination justifiable?”

Also refer to the Sanevax website for more information on this topic, including personal reports of adverse experiences after HPV vaccination.

_________________________________

References:  (Links active as at 11 November 2013.)

[1] In his article “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”, Ian Frazer states: “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.” The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

[2] Archived Fact Sheets. Australian Government Funding of Gardasil. Updated 28 November 2006: http://archive.is/pm19

[3] Howard rescues Gardasil from Abbott poison pill. The Australian, 11 November, 2006: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/howard-rescues-gardasil-from-abbott-poison-pill/story-e6frg9lx-1111112503504

[4] Ibid.

[5] Haas, Marion. “Government response to PBAC recommendations”. Health Policy Monitor, March 2007: http://hpm.org/en/Surveys/CHERE_-_Australia/09/Government_response_to_PBAC_recommendations.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] FierceVaccines special report on the 20 Top-selling Vaccines – H1 2012 states that H1 2012 sales for Gardasil (Merck) were $608 million, and sales for Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) were $285 million: http://www.fiercevaccines.com/special-report/20-top-selling-vaccines/2012-09-25

[8] “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568 The disclosure statement on this article by Ian Frazer states: “Ian Frazer as co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines receives royalties from their sale in the developed world.”

[9] See ref 1 for quote from “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!”. The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.com/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568

[10] Key Statistics. National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/facts

 

 

Controversial HPV Vaccination – Recent developments in Israel, India and Japan

Gardasil-vaccine-0071

For information, some links to recent media reports on controversial HPV vaccination in Israel, India and Japan:

Israel:

India:

Japan: