Cervarix - An Injection of the Truth ...

Scenario - young teenage girl with a possible lowered immune system and a pre-existing genetic syndrome which includes a heart condition, has a vaccine, within hours she falls ill. Over the next few days she deteriorates, within a week she is lying in hospital seemingly paralysed. Tests are carried out but they all come back negative. The child has one infection after another and does not improve. The mother wants answers, she wants to know why this has happened, she wants to know how this could have happened and all the while the child's health is deteriorating. Every time vaccines are mentioned as a possible cause for the child's health problem the subject is quickly changed. The days go on and no answers are found for why the young girl is so ill and in so much pain. Suddenly, social services are called in and mother is accused of abuse, she is told that there is nothing wrong with her child The social services say that the abuse is keeping the teenager ill when there is nothing wrong and she is told she that her child does not need a wheelchair and should go home and be encouraged to walk. Mother is unable to take her child home as there are steps leading up to the front door and it is not suitable for a teenager who is not able to walk up the stairs to the bathroom.

Facts

In the UK in September 2008 Gardasil's baby sister Cervarix was born and with it came a huge publicity launch. In every newspaper, magazine and even on television there appeared adverts advertising a vaccine that could see an end to Cervical Cancer. It seemed that Glaxo Smith Kline had done it again but was Cervarix the miracle well researched vaccine we were led to believe it was? In September 2008 every doctor in Britain received a copy of the GP magazine as usual, a magazine full of adverts and facts about the latest medical breakthroughs, treatments and surgery. In this magazine appeared the Cervarix advert and with it a CD Rom. The only difference between the advert the GP's received and the ones the public saw was some information tucked away in the small print.This information is very important because it states

"There are no data on the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness"

"Duration of protection has not been fully established"

"Timing and need for a booster has not been investigated"

However, in November 2008 when asked, a spokesman for the manufacturers Glaxo Smith Kline stated that the vaccine had only been issued after stringent testing He said

"As with all medicines that have been granted a licence, Cervarix, had to undergo rigorous testing with large numbers of people in numerous clinical studies. Over 70,000 doses of GSK's HPV vaccine have been administered in clinical studies, and girls and women who have received the vaccine have been monitored for more than six years. In clinical studies, Cervarix was found to be generally well tolerated."

So it has now been established that 70,000 doses of this vaccine have been given in studies and yet GSK admit to not knowing the duration of protection of this vaccine because this has not been fully established. This means that if this vaccine is given to a 12year old child by the time they are fully sexually active and could catch HPV the vaccine could have WORN OFF and they may not be protected.! Diane Harper involved in the testing Cervarix when GSK conducted safety trials, has very different views and questions the vaccines safety. The director of the Gynaecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire, in the USA, firmly believes more should have been done before the vaccine was implemented. She feels more testing should have taken place to establish to efficiency of Cervarix. She said We can't tell you it is 100% safe because we don't know that In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it really is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years. That way we would have a good sense of comfort and you can reassure your population. She states in an email to Freda Birrell an active campaigner in Scotland who has been campaigning for the removal of Cervarix and Gardasil that "The issue for both vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) is that it is just as effective if given to young women who are already sexually active, instead of young girls - given the propensity for young girls to still develop their neurological systems, it seems wise to wait until the girls are a bit older. There is no particular reason to go for 11 year olds." Glaxo also admit in the GP advert that the timing and need for a booster has not been investigated, why the heck not? Worst of all Glaxo state "There are no data on the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness" So this effectively means that children who have genetic conditions or children who are already weak could have reactions from this vaccine but that 'NO ONE KNOWS' because there is no data. The spokesman from GSK says that this vaccine is generally well tolerated, so are bee stings but do we want one, after all, these to can cause serious adverse reactions in some people?

In July 2008 Diane Harper on speaking about the vaccine Gardasil in a Medscape magazine suggests that physicians should not vaccinate patients with personal or family histories of the more serious conditions outlined in recent adverse-event reports. She said that "Physicians have a responsibility to communicate risks to patients and if patients and families are concerned, it is reasonable to hold off on vaccinating." Is this the same for Cervarix? I would certainly pressume so given the lack of data but does this take place? Do school nurses for example, have the full medical history of 'ALL' their students and the medical histories of their family? I doubt it.

Harper also believes the safety tests for side effects should have been conducted for at least a decade before Cervarix was released and admitted in November 2008 that the cervical cancer vaccination scheme in in Scotland was an "experiment".

So are all our young girls just guinea pigs in some big money manufacturing experiment?

Two other experts agree with Ms Harper, they also have safety concerns about the Cervarix vaccine and spoke out to Lucy Johnston in the Daily Express. London GP Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth About Vaccines, said: "It has been introduced far too quickly. I would not recommend girls are vaccinated until we know more." and Biologist Dr Mae Wan Ho, who has published a recent report on the jab, said: "I would ban this vaccine. It has low effectiveness and it is also subjecting people to the risk of long-term side effects."

The UK Governments Dawn Primarolo MP and Minister for Health however had completely different views about Cervarix and disagrees with Glaxo Smith Kline and Dr Harper completely. In a letter to another MP she states:-

"By having this vaccination young girls will be protected against the commonest cause of cervical cancer for many years to come".

"Both of these vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) have gone through very thorough testing as part of the licensing process".

"Given that this vaccines will save the lives of an estimated 400 women a year and in the absence of any scientific evidence that points to safety concerns it would be irresponsible to raise inappropriate fears over HPV vaccine safety."

So lets look at what the Health Minister is saying in detail .

"By having this vaccination young girls will be protected against the commonest cause of cervical cancer for many years to come".

This is not what GSK admit to in the small print of the GP advert and this is not what Diane Harper who was involved in the safety trials is saying. They both say they do not know how long this vaccine lasts.

"Both of these vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) have gone through very thorough testing as part of the licensing process".

If this was true then why is there no data on the use of Cervarix in subjects with impaired immune responsiveness? Why do GSK not know the duration of protection and why has the timing and need for a booster has not been investigated? If what the UK Health Minister was saying was true then surely we would have these questions answered.

Finally,

"Given that this vaccines will save the lives of an estimated 400 women a year and in the absence of any scientific evidence that points to safety concerns it would be irresponsible to raise inappropriate fears over HPV vaccine safety."

Well surely we do have scientific evidence that points to safety concerns because if GSK do not know the answers to basic fundemental questions, then surely that is one huge safety issue.

In the UK we now have 5 young girls all seriously ill, their families are now suing the GSK giants for £120,000. It is beginning to look as if they may well have an excellent case. Today Lucy Johnston reports of a case where a Consultant Paeditrician has confirmed that he believes that Cervarix is linked to his patient been left unable to walk, in pain and with sight problems.

Back to the scenario, sadly it is fact and it is not an isolated case. For many years children have been dying or wrongly taken into care, parents have been accused of murder after cot death, others have been accused and jailed for shaken baby syndrome, many of these after routine vaccinations. Parents of children with Autism have had children put on 'at risk registers' and even lost their children to the care system being accused of abusing them.

Lisa Blakemore-Brown a Child Psychologist, Author and Expert in Autism has been speaking out about her concerns for years. As far back as June 1998 she wrote in the Therapist Her article begins with an example of a case where a child had a routine vaccination and quickly developed Autism, He was subsequently taken into care when the mother pushed for help.

In the BMJ rapid responses on May 4th 2003 she wrote

"What's the point?

As I predicted over a year ago now, there would be little change this year in the recognition of vaccine reactions in children. I first posted on this issue in 2001.

At a recent talk to 100 delegates at an Autism conference I was told by a parent that they had been told that 'it was not politically correct to mention vaccine reactions', and this from a parent autism support group.

So, I'm not being politically correct: what is this Government, on its high moral ground, going to do about vaccine reactions?

What's the point of voting if scandals like this continue?

Competing interests: I do not support children being damaged by vaccine or any other medical intervention"

In the Spectator on 16th May 2007 unknown facts about the Sally Clark case were outlined. Neville Hodgkinson reports that both of the Clark children died within hours of vaccination.

He writes that Lisa Blakemore-Brown has had concerns about parents being falsely accused and children being taken into care and about her views on vaccine damage.

Recently she has written several pieces on One Click her strongest being THE POLITICS AND COMMERCE OF AUTISM where she has spoken out very strongly on these very issues.

Over the years Lisa has written over and over to the Government and each time she has been totally ignored.

So why has no one listened to Lisa and why are children still being taken wrongly into care after adverse reactions to vaccines? Why are good professionals like her and Dr Andrew Wakefield being destroyed? Today in the Daily Mail there is an article with the headline GCSE pupils 'brainwashed' to support the MMR programme All the students have to do to get marks in their GCSE Science exam is to trash Dr Wakefield. This is absolutely disgusting. The UK Government is now encouraging children to back the MMR programme by saying that all they have to do to pass their exams is to agree with them that all vaccines are safe and anyone who says different is to be ruined, destroyed and discredited.