By Dr. Mercola
On October 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued the recommendation that Merck's vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), Gardasil, be given to males between the ages of 11 and 21.
They further recommend the vaccine series can be given to boys as young as nine, as well as to men up to the age of 26, especially if they engage in homosexual sex?allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts, and cancers of the penis and rectum.
Another key part of the recommendation is the claim that reducing HPV in men will reduce transmission to girls and women, and thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths.
But according to a recent study, which is based on a mathematical study of HPV transmission, this is not an effective strategy.
Rather, the authors concluded that:
"Increasing vaccine uptake among preadolescent girls is more effective in reducing HPV infection than including boys in existing vaccination programs.
As a rule, directing prophylactic immunization at the sex with the highest prevaccine prevalence results in the largest reduction of the population prevalence."
"Because many countries have started vaccinating girls against HPV, these countries should stick to vaccinating girls, said study researcher Johannes Bogaards, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. Only once most girls are vaccinated should efforts begin to vaccinate boys, and even then, only if there will be an added benefit to male vaccination, Bogaards said."
There's NO Evidence that Gardasil Reduces Cervical Cancer Incidence
Despite Merck's claims, the question of whether Gardasil will reduce cervical cancer deaths in real-world conditions has actually never been answered. The company-sponsored studies on the subject looked at cervical changes that aren't indicative of cervical cancer in the first place.
"Merck says that in males, the vaccine is 89 percent effective against genital warts and 75 percent effective against anal cancer. On closer inspection, some of the numbers don't just deflate, they evaporate ... So how did the HPV vaccine become a multi-billion-dollar winner for Merck? Well you might not be surprised to hear that the company happily lavished money on doctors, professional societies, and over 100 legislators."
Vanishing Efficacy Rates
In her Discover article, medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer goes on to expose how misleading Merck's stated efficacy rates really are:
"On May 10, 2007, Merck published the results of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed an astounding 98 percent efficacy in preventing changes in the cervix used as a marker for cervical cancer.
But?[to] achieve the 98 percent efficacy claim, Merck excluded from analysis anyone who "violated" the study protocol. In other words, all real-world problems that arose were excluded from analysis. Problems like girls who refused to take a second or third shot after they became sick and (correctly or incorrectly) blamed the vaccine?
To Merck's credit, they reported that when all women in the study were analyzed, the vaccine's efficacy dropped to 44 percent? [But the] 44 percent benefit included only those women with the two specific cancer-causing HPV strains found in the vaccine? [W]hen the researchers looked at negative cervical changes from any causes, they found that changes occurred in unvaccinated women at a rate of 1.5 events per 100 person-years, while vaccinated women had 1.3 events?dropping the benefit to 17 percent.
Moreover, most of the cervical changes tracked by the researchers weren't even indicative of cervical cancer in the first place. Most were innocent cellular abnormalities that either disappear entirely on their own, or never progress to cancer. In fact, when they looked more closely at advanced cervical changes most likely to progress to cancer versus more innocent changes that go away spontaneously, it was the innocent changes that accounted for the decline." [Emphasis mine]
Gardasil has already proven to be a reactive vaccine with potentially devastating side effects. In order to accept a high level of risk to your child's health, don't you think you deserve some pretty overwhelming proof that it is in fact worth this risk? Ultimately you need to carefully review the risk/benefit ratio of this vaccine and carefully consider this important decision.
Why Expose Millions to Potential Harm in Order to Save a Handful?
According to a recent CNN report, the cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys would be $38 million. How can this in any way be justified as cost-effective, when anal cancer, for example, has so far stricken a mere 5,820 men and women this year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals?300 men and 470 women!
Gardasil is claimed to be 75 percent effective against anal cancer in men, so crunch the numbers? This is nothing short of crazy. They actually want to place millions of people at risk with this dangerous vaccine in order to reduce anal cancer deaths that claims less than 300 men per year? That's incredible! Likewise, cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, so this vaccine is certainly not aimed at any major health threat, no matter which way you look at it. But it gets worse. As explained by Lenzer in the featured article:"First off, let's define the problem: The annual number of deaths from anal-rectal cancer among all men in the U.S. is 300. And how did Merck get its happy statistics on efficacy? Once again, they reported an idealized benefit by excluding from analysis 1,250 study violators out of 4,055 total test subjects. When the real-world analysis was conducted, the numbers plunged?right down to plum nothing. After evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions "was not observed."
Believe me, this is a health emergency in the making. Please do not be deceived into giving this dangerous vaccine to your kids, regardless of their gender. As Angela Raffle, a specialist in cervical cancer screening, told the New York Times three years ago:
"Oh, dear. If we give it to boys, then all pretenses of scientific worth and cost analysis goes out the window."
Gardasil Sorely Lacking in Safety
While cost-effectiveness is an important concern, I believe safety would certainly trump it. It's important to realize that while Gardasil has not been proven to actually prevent cancer in the long term, there is mounting evidence showing it carries tremendous long-term health risks, including:
|Bell's Palsy and Guillan-Barre syndrome||Seizures||Cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer|
|Blood clotting and heart problems, including cardiac arrest||Miscarriages and fetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women who received the vaccine||Sudden death|
"? Nizar Souayah, MD, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, says he and his colleagues found "clear evidence from our database of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barr