Doubts raised about effectiveness of HPV vaccines (Medical Journal)

Search for ‘gardasil’ in categories here (left of page) to find other articles on Gardasil. There are many that give injuries and deaths for this vaccine … EWR


A new analysis of the clinical trials of HPV vaccines to prevent cervical cancer raises doubts about the vaccines’ effectiveness. The analysis, published by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, assessed 12 published Phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled efficacy trials of the HPV vaccines Cervarix and Gardasil.

The analysis, carried out by researchers at Newcastle University and Queen Mary University of London, revealed many methodological problems in the design of the Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials, leading to uncertainty regarding understanding the effectiveness of HPV vaccination.

The researchers found that the trials were not designed to detect cervical cancer, which takes decades to develop. Women in the trials were followed up for six years or less, apart from one trial extension to just under nine years. While the researchers found evidence that vaccination prevents low grade abnormal cell changes, they said this is not clinically important because no treatment is given.

Lead researcher Dr Claire Rees, of Queen Mary University of London, said: “Trials may have overestimated efficacy by combining high-grade cervical disease with low-grade cervical changes that occur more frequently but often resolve spontaneously without progressing. We found insufficient data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents the higher-grade abnormal cell changes that can eventually develop into cervical cancer.”

Dr Rees added: “Abnormal cell changes are likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at 6-12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This, too, means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine, again because some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously.”

The researchers also found that the trial populations had limited relevance and validity for real world settings. The women in the trials were older than the target population.

Calling for women to still attend regular cervical screening, co-author of the study, Professor Allyson Pollock, of Newcastle University, said: “We have good evidence that cervical screening significantly reduces the risk of cervical cancer in women regardless of whether they have been vaccinated.”

6 thoughts on “Doubts raised about effectiveness of HPV vaccines (Medical Journal)”

  1. I’d thought the Gardasil vaccine would be easy to identify as phony, since there was no way of showing that it even MIGHT prevent cervical cancer. But what the public never gets to hear in mainstream media, or in school, etc., is that vaccines of all kinds have been reported to cause cancer (among a lengthy list of adverse events surrounding the injection of heavy metals, noxious chemicals, and foreign RNA/DNA/viruses from animals). And, it took 30 years (from time of first injections) for the “scientists” to discover SV40 cancer in people from the (equally phony) polio shots.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks again Sue for that valuable info. Many people are just so trusting of the medics they would never question them. Seems to take an injury to themselves or someone close to see what’s happened.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. And one problem with learning from “injury to themselves or someone close”) is that so much vaccine injury is insidious, and the industry, via it’s bought-and-paid-for media withholds information from the public, making the effort of connecting the dots nearly impossible. And I’ve found that most people don’t want to know. My brother was killed by a TDaP, and his wife, although she was there, and witnessed his sharp decline after the shot, want’s desperately to NOT acknowledge it or discuss it. And, she is typical of many.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry, I am also Sue Marston. WordPress used to give me the option of using just my first name. Then it gave me only the option of Sukijopa or my full name. But then I have to remember before I post my comment to click on “change” to change it, which I sometimes forget to do.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.