Gardasil for boys: a too risky and too expensive bet!

Gardasil for boys: a too risky and too expensive bet!

 

by Gerard Delepine MD, oncologist surgeon  gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

 Would “HPV cancer of the anal canal” justify vaccinating the whole male population?

Pub is spreading fear in homosexual males and on all continents, to enlarge the market!

The French newspaper Le Monde published in May 2018 a forum[1]using fear, pain and misfortune, to promote vaccination against HPV in boys and prepare the population to the vaccinal obligation that demand the pharmaceutical lobby and its political and medical agents.

They want to extend to boys the recommendation of Gardasil, and add its obligation, to the mandatory 11 vaccines billed last year in France. This tribune of Le Monde was not written to inform on the 60 deaths registered each year in French males from cancer of the anus, but to prepare the population for a new obligation that would obviously be proposed for “equality between men and women, homo and heterosexual” (and the profit of the stock market?) In France, when a vaccine is mandatory, is no longer the guilty to compensate the victims but, the National Solidarity (our taxes). Mandatory vaccinations are worth!

Faith in a vaccine, coupled with greed does not justify the manipulation of facts. Recall the scientific data established by citing our sources, so that everyone can check.

 

IS IT REASONABLE TO IMPOSE TO ALL MALES A VACCINE AT RISK FOR A VERY MARGINAL PATHOLOGY THAT KILL SO FEW? [2]

What about the real danger of anal cancer?

According to the different international cancer registries, the incidence[3] [4]of anal cancer has not been multiplied « by at least three in thirty years’ as claimed by the authors of this forum.

During the last three decades, the standardized incidence of anal cancer has increased in some countries by an average of 80 %, (in very close relation with the evolution of sexual practices.

40% in Norway (from 0.8 in 1985 to 1.1 in 2015 [5], 50% in the USA (from 1.2 in 1985 to 1.9 in 2015) [6], 63% in Great Britain (from 1.4 in 1995 to 2.4 in 2015)[7]   , 100% in Denmark (0.68 to 1.48 for women and 0.45 to 0.80 for men between 1978 and 2008) [8], 90% in Australia (from 0.8 in 1982 to 1.5 in 2016) [9] , 84% in the Netherlands (0.45 in 1989 versus 0.83 in 2010) [10], 100% in France (from 0.2 to 0.5 for men and to 1.3 for women from 1982 to 2012) [11], 60% in Italy between 1983 and 2007 (1 to 2 for men and 1.8 to 2.5 for women) [12].

In contrast, no significant increase in incidence was observed in Spain, Israel, India, Japan, Singapore.

 

In countries where an increased incidence was observed, it is LINKED TO TWO HIGH RISK SUBGROUPS: IMMUNODEFICIENT AND PERSONS PRACTICING PASSIVE ANAL SEX. 

PEOPLE TAKING IMMUNODEPRESSANT TREATMENTS suffer from an incidence of anal cancer 5 times higher than the overall population [13], rate close to that of heterosexuals infected with the AIDS virus [14] [15].

 

The practice of passive anal sex is the most important etiologic factor [16] [17] [18] [19] and partly explains the constant over risk of women compared to heterosexual men (1.5/100,000 to 3/100,000), and the risk 60 to 90 times higher of passive homosexual men (incidence 95/100,000) culminating at 130/100,000 among those who are carriers of the HIV virus[20].

The French authorities want to impose a generalized risky vaccination officially to protect a marginal population, «without stigmatizing it”. Given the small number of subjects at risk, the commercial interest (to double the sales!) probably justifies this apparent  » kindness « , for these small groups?

ANAL CANAL CANCER, NOT A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

Except in these two high risk groups, anal canal cancer in men is not a public health problem. In France, it accounts for less than one-thousandth of all cancers, with around 280 cases reported among men and fewer than 60 deaths in 2015[21]. In USA it accounts for less than 0.5% of new cancers and 0.2% of all cancer deaths [22].

How to justify running the risks of an experimental vaccine to the entire population under these conditions?

As for cervical cancer, the merchants brandish the presence of HPV (cause or association?) to promote vaccination. Vaccine promoters affirm the causal link between papillomavirus infection and anal cancer, citing the actual statistical association between this infection and cancer. But association, concomitance do not necessarily mean causation, as we have pointed out in the case of cervical cancer.

 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ANAL CANCER

Those who are interested in anal canal cancer should consider known other associated factors likely to favour its occurrence sexually transmitted infections, smoking [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], number of partners.

All these factors are interrelated, and the establishment of causal link can only be based on the multifactorial analysis of the data of a large population, analysis never seriously made to our knowledge.

Given the extreme frequency of HPV infections in sexually active people and their spontaneous clearance in non-immunodeficient subjects, they could just as well represent a marker of sexual activity, likely as repeated microtrauma and other sexually transmitted infections to maintain chronic local inflammation whose carcinogenic role has been known for a long time.

 

PREVENTION OF ANAL CANCER

The reminder of these risk factors is necessary to lay the foundations for prevention that cannot be limited to promoting vaccines that have not yet proven effectiveness in preventing cancer.

Classic and effective primary prevention of the anal canal  

The consensus basis of prevention of anal cancer includes using the condom for all intercourse, vaginal, oral or anal. Do not smoke and avoid exposure to tobacco smoke. And if you take drugs, always use single-use syringes. Avoiding contamination by HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, certainly reduces the risk of developing anal cancer.

High risk for an experimental vaccine whose anti-cancer efficacy is not proven

To vaccinate all the young French, hoping thus to protect sexual minorities represents a too risky and too expensive betEven if the vaccine was effective, how much could it save from life from 60 annual deaths from this cancer? With what side effects on millions of French? At a prohibitive cost (around € 300 million euros /year) making this vaccine not cost effective in a country that can no longer afford a decent welcome in emergencies, or in the EPHAD (elderly hospitals) for which the minister, having “no magic, money “promised only 60 million € per year?

And for a very uncertain and even possibly negative medical benefit! Gardasil for boys? No thanks!

 

[1] Collective: In less than 30 years, the incidence of anal cancer has increased by at least three in most Western countries. Le Monde (Paris) May 2018

[2] Less than 60 deaths a year in France

[3] The incidence is the number of new cases that are observed per 100,000 people per year (Crude Rate)

[4] Since the cancer is more common in older people, the crude incidence is generally higher in a region where the elderly is more numerous. To avoid this bias, it is customary to normalize the crude incidence by the age structure of the population giving the standardized incidence. If the European or world standard population is used, the European standardized rate is obtained (European Standardized Rate or ESR), or World Standardized Rate (WSR)

[5] BT Hansen, S Campbell, Nygård M Long-term incidence of HPV related cancers, and cases preventable by HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway

BMJ Open 2018; 8: bmjopen-2017-019005

[6] Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) 13 Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-201

[7]  Incidence of anal cancer; Cancer Research UK 2017

[8] Nielsen, Munk C, Kjaer SK Trends in the incidence of anal cancer and high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia in Denmark, 1978-2008. Int J Cancer. 2012 Mar1; 130 (5): 1168-73. 10.1002 / ijc.26115. Epub 2011 May 30

[9] Cancer in Australia 2017, page 81 can be downloaded   http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer-publications

[10] ARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Vol. 10: Cervix Cancer Screening. IARC Press. Lyon

[11] Bouvier AM1, Belot A, Manfredi S, Jooste V, Uhry Z, Faivre J, Duport N, Grabar S; French network of cancer registries FRANCIM. Trends of incidence and survival in squamous-cell carcinoma of the anal canal in France: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016 May; 25 (3): 182-7

[12] Ferlay J, Bray F, Steliarova-Foucher E and Forman D. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, CI5plus: IARC Cancer Base No.9 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. http://ci5.iarc.fr

[13] Grulich AE, van Leeuwen MT, Falster MO, et al. Incidence of cancers in people with HIV / AIDS compared with immunosuppressed transplant recipients: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2007; 370 (9581): 59-67.

[14] A. Nyitray MS Anal cancer and human papillomaviruses in heterosexual men Current oncology-volume 15, number 5 3 updates and developments in oncology 2008

[15] Grabar S, Moing V, Goujard C, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with HIV-1 infection according to immunologic and virologic response after 6 months of highly active antiretroviral therapy.  Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 401-10.

[16] Daling JR, Weiss NS, Hislop TG, Maden C, RJ Coates, Sherman KJ, et al. Sexual practices, sexually transmitted diseases, and the incidence of anal cancer. N Engl J Med 1987; 317 (16): 973-7

[17] Holly EA, Whittemore AS, Aston DA, Ahn DK, Nickoloff BJ, Kristiansen JJ. Anal cancer incidence: genital warts, anal fissure fistula gold, hemorrhoids, and smoking.

J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81 (22): 1726-31.

[18] Frisch M, Glimelius B, van den Brule AJ, Wohlfahrt J, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM, et al. Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (19): 1350-8

[19] Tseng HF, Morgenstern H, Mack TM, Peters RK. Risk factors for anal cancer: results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Causes Control 2003; 14 (9): 837-46

[20]Silverberg MJ, Lau B, AC Justice, Engels E, Gill MJ, Goedert JJ, et al. Risk of anal cancer in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected individuals North America. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54 (7): 1026-34

[21]French High Council for Public Health Opinion on vaccination recommendations against human papillomavirus infections in men February 19, 2016

[22] Statistics at a Glance https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/anus.html

[23] Daling JR, Sherman KJ, Hislop TG, Maden C, Mandelson MT, Beckmann AM, Weiss NS. Tuxedo cigarette and the risk of anogenital cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Jan. 15; 135 (2): 180-9.

[24] Nordenvall C, Nilsson PJ, Ye W, Nyrén O. Smoking, snus use and risk of right- and left-sided colon, rectal and anal cancer: a 37-year follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2011 Jan 1; 128 (1): 157-65.

[25] Coffey K, Beral V, Green J, Reeves G, Barnes I; Million Women Study Collaborators.

Br J Cancer.Lifestyle and reproductive risk factors. 2015 Apr 28; 112(9): 1568-74. Epub 2015 Mar 12.

[26] Daling JR, Madeleine MM, LG Johnson, and Human Papillomavirus alum, smoking, and sexual practices in the aetiology of anal cancer. Cancer. 2004 Jul 15; 101 (2): 270-80

[27] Holly EA, Whittemore AS, Aston DA, et al Anal cancer incidence: genital warts, anal fissure fistula gold, hemorrhoids, and smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Nov 15; 81 (22): 1726-31

Gardasil: faith and propaganda versus hard evidence

Faith and propaganda versus hard evidence

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

In a recent news: « Cervical cancer: deaths increase as HPV vaccine is underused, says WHO »[1] published in British Medical Journal, Owen Dyer pleas for of anti HPV vaccines  on the faith that this vaccine can prevent invasive cervix cancer. This golden tale is respectable but relies only on « predictions, » not on scientific hard evidences of real oncologic results. He acts as a new advocate of vaccination promising for now more than 15 years that cervix cancer will disappear in 20 years but forget to watch to oncologic results already published in cancer registries!

These real oncologic results are paradoxical and really worrying: In all the countries with high anti HPV coverage the incidence[2] of invasive cervix cancer increases in vaccinated age groups while in older (unvaccinated) population and in France, (with low vaccine coverage) the incidence diminishes.

 

The Myth of Australian success

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls aged 12 to 26 in 2007 and is always cited as the example of success of vaccine on the belief of a simulation presented as real results[3]. But, according to the cancer register[4], vaccinated age groups women suffer from risk increase: 113% (from 0.7 to 1.5) for those aged 20 to 24 (catch up vaccinated for more than 80% of them), about a third increase for 25-29 y women (p<0.05) and for 30-34 who are less vaccinated, (p=0.01). These last increases are statistically significant and cannot be due to hazard. During the same period, most older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease : less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

 

 

 

GREAT BRITAIN: THE PARADOXAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

The UK national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination to 12–13-year-old with catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. Vaccination coverage in England has been with over 80% of 12–13-year olds receiving the full course. Coverage within the catch-up cohorts ranges from 39% to 76%). As related by Castanon « We expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged ages 20 to 24 from 2014… However, in 2016, national statistics showed sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in the vaccinated age groups. Women aged between 20 and 25 years vaccinated for more than 85% of them, saw their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006)[5], and those aged 25 to 30,  who were aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign saw their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015 (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 )”. According to Office of National Statistics Women 25 to 34 years, less vaccinated, have seen incidence increase by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).  Older, women unvaccinated, benefit of stable or decreasing incidence (-13% for 65-79, 10% after 80.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON IN SWEDEN.

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006, and the vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.  In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global [6]population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015[7]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled (from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 c=0.89; p<0.001). The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 24% in women aged 25 to 34 from 12.44 to 15.49(c=0.68; p=0.05), In contrast, a decrease in the incidence has been observed in women over 50. Dillner, a promoter of vaccination recognizes the increase of incidence of cancer in his country [8] but pretends that « less effectiveness of screening » is the culprit

Advocates of vaccination brandish good results against infection by stains included in the vaccines and decrease of CN2 CN3. But they should rather watch on registered cancer incidences and wonder about the paradoxical contrast of decrease of infection and statistically significant increases of invasive cancer. This paradox questions the causal Link between HPV infection and cancer and the repeated mis information pretending that 99% of cervix cancer are only due to HG HPV[9] 

 

 

 

 

France: the bad example for big pharma

 

 

 

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than the countries with high vaccine coverage. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that this favourable French evolution, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our representatives[10], for some misinformed and other with too much competing interests with big pharma

 

[1] BMJ 2019;364: l580 doi: 10.1136/bmj. l580 (Published 6 February 2019)

[2] Incidence = number of new annual cases/100 000 women

[3] BBC Cervical cancer: Australia ‘to be first to eliminate disease’2018 10 3 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45727977

[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

[5] Castanon A. Sasieni P. Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20–24 years in England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21–28

[6] Cytological begnin abnormalities linked to infections

[7] According to Nordcan. register

[8] Dillner Joaquim: Livmoderhals cancer ökar hosbkvinnor med normalt cellprov Läkartidningen

Volym 115 article in swedish

[9] Ibid Already cited BBC 2018 10

[10] Their representativity is questioned by the « yellow coats

PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF ANTI-HPV VACCINE GARDASIL ON CERVICAL CANCER RATE

 

PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF ANTI-HPV VACCINE GARDASIL ON CERVICAL CANCER RATE

State of published results in registers,  on January 2019

Dr G Delépine, oncologist, surgeon

gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

 

 

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”. Niels Bohr (Nobel prized for his works on the structure of the atom and chemical reactions )

 

 

Changing the natural history of cancer that increases in frequency and occurs faster.

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This  » Titanic  » demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.

 

Pre-vaccination period : spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer.   

In all countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a significant decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.

In less than 20 years, the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from :

13.5 to 9.4 n Great Britain [1]

13.5 to 7 in Australia[2] ,

11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden [3],

15.1 to 11 in Norway [4],

10.7 to 6.67 in the USA [5],

11 to 7.1 in France.

Globally, in the countries that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007.

 

Era of vaccination: reversal of the trend. Gardasil’s prevention failure erases the beneficial effects of the smear and accelerates the onset of cervical cancer. 

 

Since vaccination, in all the countries implemented with a large vaccination program, there is a reversal of the trend, with a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated groups. Let’s look at OFFICIAL sources.

 

AUSTRALIA : contrary to the FAKE NEWS OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICS, REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW CANCERS OF THE CERVIX DISAPPEAR, BUT INCREASE.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013).. According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014 ) [6] , the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appears by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8 ,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard.

 

A drama known to one top athlete  Sarah Tait

This increased risk of cancer following vaccination was dramatically illustrated by the sad story of Sarah Tait, olympic rowing champion, at the 2012 London Olympics. This champion saw her life shattered in full glory : she suffered invasive cervical cancer a few years later, being vaccinated and died at age 33. Of course, we don’t know if vaccination was the direct cause of her cancer, but she has, statistically, a one in two chances of having suffered from a cancer linked to vaccination (to be part of the 113% increase of cancer observed after vaccination). In addition, we remark that cancer appears very early in this woman.

 

Non vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with pap smear

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly:

less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1),

less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9),

less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8)

and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

 

GREAT BRITAIN : THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

In UK, a national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination routinely to 12–13-year-old and offer catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. The UK national program initially used the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix), but, changed in 2012 to use the quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil). HPV vaccination coverage in England has been high with over 80% of 12–13 years old receiving the full course coverage. The catch-up cohort has been lower covered (ranging from 39% to 76%).

Since the vaccination, the standardized incidence in the overall population increased from 9.4 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.6 in 2015. We observe contrasting trends between the age groups.

Vaccination promoters expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged 20 to 24 from 2014, as vaccinated adolescents enter their second decade. However, in 2016, national statistics showed a sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in this age group. This information of 2016 has unfortunately not been publicized. They could have served as an alert.

Women aged between 20 and 25 years, vaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30, ( aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign)  have seen their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015[7] (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 ).

Women 25 to 34 years, (less vaccinated, only exposed to some catch-up vaccinations), have seen their risk increased by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).

In Great Britain, as in Australia, older, unvaccinated women have seen their risk decrease:

( -13% for women aged 65 to 79 and -10% for those over 80 ), most likely because continuation of smear screening.

 

 

SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON OF GARDASIL IN SWEDEN : THE RATE OF CANCER INCREASES IN THE VACCINATED AGE GROUPS . ALERT!

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015[8]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled ( from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001)[9] and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01)

In contrast, as in Australia and Great Britain, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer has been observed in women over 50, a group that has not been included in the vaccination program. The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased between 2007 and 2015 by 6% for women aged 50 to 59 (from 14.24 to 13.34), and 4% for those aged 60 to 69 (12.63%). at 12.04,) 17% for those aged 70 to 79 (from 15.28 to 12.66) and 12% for those over 80 (from 15.6 to 13.68).

 

 

IN  NORWAY

Cancer registry shows an increase in the standardized incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix from 11.7 in 2007 to 12.2 in 2009, 13.2 in 2012 and 14. 9 2015 [10].

This increase is due -almost exclusively- to young women, which include all vaccinated, as evidenced by the sharp decline of the average age of onset of the cervix cancer from 48 years in 2002 -2006 to 45 years in 2012-2016.

 

Between 2007 and 2015 , the incidence of invasive cervical cancer increased by 8% among women aged 20 to 29 (from 7.78 to 8.47)[11].

 

During the same period, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer was observed in older women, not involved in the vaccination program: -11% for women aged 55 to 64 (15.47 to 13.7), -16% for those aged 65 to 74 (17.7 to 14.71) and -29% for those aged 75 to 85 (18.39 to 13) .

 

In USA

 

In this country, vaccination coverage is lower than in previous countries (close to 60%).

According to the Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2015[12], the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer remains stable(+0.1) since vaccination.

 

In US, the same discrepancy is observed according to age groups, but of lesser amplitude. Women over 50, benefit a 5% decrease in their risk (from 10.37 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.87 in 2015), whereas younger women, which include vaccinated, have given their risk increase of 4% (5.24 in 2007 to 5.47 in 2015).

 

 

WITNESS COUNTRY: FRANCE 

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France[13] the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than those of countries with high vaccine coverage.

This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that these excellent French results, with low cervix cancer rate and low related mortality, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our policies, for some misinformed and other big pharma links[14].

 

DRAMATIC AND UNEXPECTED PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL: THE ALERT MUST BE GIVEN TO DECISION MAKERS AND THE MEDIA. 

In all countries that achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. 

For women under 20, the crude number are to small to reach statistical significance, but the similar increases in all the studied countries constitutes a strong alarm signal.

For women 20-30 the incidence increases after catch up vaccination, and is highly significant (p<0.01or 0.001). In these same countries, during the same period, older women, not vaccinated, have seen their risk of cervical cancer continue to decline.

Similarly, in metropolitan France, a country with low vaccination coverage, the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decline at a rate comparable to the pre-vaccination period.

These paradoxical results plea for a rapid revision of recommendations and intensive research to explain this catastrophic issue.

 

 

[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <Http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in

England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018 .

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous , for girls and boys.

 

 

Evolution du risque de cancer invasif du col de l’utérus en Grande-Bretagne depuis la vaccination par Gardasil

 

diaporama évolution cancer du col GB

Evolution du risque de cancer invasif du col de l’utérus en Grande-Bretagne depuis la vaccination par Gardasil

La Grande Bretagne a organisé la vaccination pour les filles de 12 à 13 ans, avec un rattrapage pour les 14-18 ans dès 2008. D’après le Public Health England [1], la couverture vaccinale complète des filles âgées de 13 à 14 ans à 3 injections atteignait 86.7% en 2013/14.

D’après l’un des apôtres de la vaccination, A Castanon[2] : on « s’attendait à ce que les taux de cancer du col chez les femmes ans diminuent à partir de 2014, à mesure que les cohortes des adolescentes vaccinées entraient dans leur deuxième décennie.

Cependant en 2016, les statistiques nationales ont montré une augmentation brutale et importante du taux de cancer du col utérin.

Les femmes de 20 à 24 ans vaccinées pour plus de 85% d’entre elles, alors qu’elles avaient entre 14 et 18 ans, ont vu leur risque de cancer augmenter de 70% en 2 ans (de 2,7 en 2012 à 4,6 en 2014) et celles de 25 à 29 ans qui avaient entre 17 à 23 ans au moment de la campagne de vaccination ont vu leur risque de cancer doubler entre 2007 et 2015 (de 11 à 22). »

 

Les femmes de 25 à 34 ans, (moins vaccinées, car seulement exposées aux vaccinations « de rattrapage »), ont vu leur risque augmenter de 18% (de 17 en 2007 à 20 en 2014). Ainsi que le montre ce relevé de National Office of Statistics[3] et de Cancer Research United Kingdom

  2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015
25 to 34

 

15,8 17,0 19,1 19,7 19,5 18,5 19,1 19,8 20,0

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/incidence?_ga=2.189881579.1799137437.1543334728-1160609591.1539423969

Selon ces mêmes sources, en Grande Bretagne, comme en Australie, les femmes plus âgées, non vaccinées ont vu leur risque diminuer (-13% pour les femmes âgées de 65 à 79 ans et -10% pour celles de plus de 80 ans), très probablement en raison de la poursuite du dépistage par frottis.

Age Range

 

2004-2006 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 2012-2014 2013-2015
65 to 79

 

10,9 10,8 10,7 10,9 10,2 10,0 9,7 10,2 9,7 9,3
80+ 14,8 14,2 14,1 13,7 13,0 12,4 11,6 11,7 12,1 11,5

Ainsi la campagne de vaccination a été suivie d’une augmentation considérable de l’incidence des cancers invasifs du col de l’utérus dans les classes d’âge vaccinés tandis que les femmes plus âgées non vaccinées voyaient leur risque continuer à diminuer.

Et sur l’ensemble de la population exposée au cancer du col (femmes de plus de 20 ans) l’incidence standardisée a augmenté, passant de 12.6 en 2007  à 14.1 en 2014

 

Cette augmentation importante du risque de cancer après vaccination constitue un signal d’alerte fort qui justifie des études complémentaires afin d’en déterminer les raisons et un moratoire sur la vaccination en attendant une révision des recommandations actuelles.

[1] Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage in adolescent females in England: 2016/17

[2] Alejandra Castanon,⁎, Peter Sasienia, Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20–24 years in

England a cause for concern?   Preventive Medicine Volume 107, February 2018, Pages 21-28https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743517304802?via%3Dihub

[3] L’Office for National Statistics est une agence exécutive britannique chargée de collecter et publier les informations statistiques sur l’économie, la population et la société du Roy

Evolution du risque de cancer du col de l’utérus en Suède depuis la vaccination par Gardasil

Evolution du risque de cancer du col de l’utérus en Suède depuis la vaccination par Gardasil.

 

DR G Delépine chirurgien et statisticien.   gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

 

En Suède, le Gardasil est utilisé depuis 2006, et le programme de vaccination a été généralisé en 2010, avec une couverture vaccinale des adolescentes âgées de 12 ans de près de 80%. En 2012–2013, avec un programme dit de rattrapage, la quasi-totalité des jeunes filles de 13 à 18 ans ont été vaccinées.

D’après le registre officiel Nordcan, le nombre de cancer du col de l’utérus a augmenté en Suède ces dernières années avec une augmentation de 27% du nombre de nouveaux cas annuels (de 440 à 562).[1]

 

Dans ce pays, l’incidence standardisée du cancer du col de l’utérus a augmenté progressivement depuis la vaccination passant de 9.36 en 2006, à 9.7 en 2009, 10.3 en 2012 et 11,51 en 2015. [2]

 

Les femmes de 20 à 24 ans ont vu leur risque doubler passant de 1.86 à 3.72

L’incidence du cancer invasif du col de l’utérus a augmenté de 19% chez les femmes de 20 à 29 ans (de 6.69 à 8.01), de 47% chez celles de 30 à 39 ans (de 14.78 à 21.81) et de 40 % chez celles de 40 à 49 ans (de 14.68 à 20.50)[3].

 

 

suède diaporama G Delepine 10 Décembre 2018

 

 

A l’opposé, en Suède, comme en Australie et en Grande Bretagne, une diminution de l’incidence de cancer invasif a été observée chez les femmes de plus de 50 ans, groupe qui n’a pas été concerné par le programme de vaccination.

L’incidence du cancer invasif du col de l’utérus a ainsi baissé entre 2007 et 2015 de 6% pour les femmes âgées de 50 à 59 ans (de 14.24 à 13.34), de 4 % pour celles de 60 à 69 ans (12.63 à 12.04,) de 17% pour celles de 70 à 79 ans (de 15.28 à 12.66) et de 12 % pour celles de plus de 80 ans (de 15.6 à 13.68).

Il faut aussi signaler que les 20% de femmes qui ne se font pas dépister[4] totalisent 80% des formes graves de cancer du col et que la plus grande couverture de dépistage pourrait donc éviter

 

[1] Dillner J1, Sparén P2, Andrae B2, Strander B3. [Cervical cancer has increased in Sweden in women who had a normal cell sample]. Lakartidningen. 2018 Jun 5;115. pii: E9FD.

[2] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister för Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [en suédois]

[3] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Ólafsdóttir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed on 30/09/2018.

[4] Elfstrom KM, Sparen P, Olausson P, Almstedt P, Strander B, Dillner J. Registry-based assessment of the status of cervical screening in Sweden. J Med Screen. 2016.

Evolution du risque de cancer du col de l’utérus en Australie depuis la vaccination par Gardasil (de 2007 à 2014)

 DR G Delépine chirurgien et statisticien.   gerard.delepine@bbox.fr

 

australie diaporama 10 déc 2018 G Delépine

 

 

 

L’Australie fut le premier pays à organiser la vaccination systématique pour les filles (dès 2007), puis pour les garçons (2013). D’après l’Australian Institute of Health and Welfare[1], l’incidence brute (nombre annuel de nouveaux cas pour 100000 femmes) et l’incidence standardisée (incidence brute corrigée des variations démographique en se référant à une population standard) dans la population globale n’ont plus diminué depuis la vaccination.

 

 

Cette stabilisation globale résulte de deux tendances contradictoires qui n’apparaissent qu’à l’examen des évolutions selon les groupes d’âge.

Les femmes appartenant aux groupes d’âge vaccinés ont vu leur risque augmenter fortement : (capture d’écran du registre australien AWHI) :

100% d’augmentation pour celles de 15 à 19 ans (de 0.1 en 2007 à 0.2 en 2014)

113% d’augmentation (de 0.7 à 1.5) pour celles de 20 à 24 ans vaccinées pour plus de 80% d’entre elles alors qu’elles avaient entre 13 et 17 ans,

36% (5.9 à 8) pour le groupe 25-29

et 33% (9.9 à 13.2) pour celles de 30 à 34 ans moins vaccinées, car seulement exposées aux vaccinations « de rattrapage ». [2]

 

 

Un drame connu de tous les sportifs de haut niveau : celui de Sarah Tait

Cet accroissement du risque de cancer après la vaccination a été dramatiquement illustré par la triste histoire de Sarah Tait, championne olympique d’aviron au deux sans barreur, lors des JO de Londres en 2012. Cette championne a vu sa vie brisée en pleine gloire : elle a souffert de cancer invasif du col quelques années après avoir été vaccinée et en est morte à 33 ans. On ne peut bien sûr pas affirmer que la vaccination a été à l’origine de son cancer mais elle a, statistiquement, une chance sur deux d’avoir souffert d’un cancer lié à la vaccination (de faire partie des 113% de surrisque de cancer observé après vaccination).

 

Les femmes non vaccinées continuent à bénéficier du dépistage par frottis

Durant la même période les femmes plus âgées (et donc non vaccinées) ont vu

Moins 17% pour les femmes de 55 à 59 ans (de 9.7 à 8.1), -13% pour celles de 60 à 64ans (de 10.3 à 8.9), moins 23% pour celles de75 à 79 ans (de11.5 à 8.8) et même moins 31% pour celles de 80 à 84 ans (de 14.5 à 10).

En l’absence d’études officielles sérieuses, nous ne pouvons donc qu’émettre des hypothèses sur les causes possibles de ce résultat paradoxal.

On ne peut guère évoquer, dans l’augmentation constatée une évolution sensible des moyens ou critères diagnostiques du cancer invasif : ni les critères histologiques, ni les méthodes pour les mettre en évidence n’ont globalement changé durant cette période.

 

 

 L’abandon du frottis ?  

Le risque d’abandon par certaines femmes du dépistage par frottis, due à la propagande mensongère prétendant que la vaccination protège du cancer du col, avait été souligné par Diane Harper (supposant une efficacité du vaccin !).

« Les vaccinations à elles seules n’empêcheront pas le cancer du col de l’utérus, à moins que leur efficacité ne dépasse 15 ans. Si la durée d’efficacité est plus courte, l’apparition du cancer chez la femme est simplement différée. Des études antérieures ont déjà montré qu’une cessation volontaire du dépistage chez une génération de femmes ayant peu de contacts avec des amis qui développaient ou mourraient d’un cancer invasif du col de l’utérus a entraîné population.(…).

 Si davantage de jeunes adolescentes vaccinés deviennent des femmes qui refusent volontairement le dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus, les taux de cancer du col de l’utérus augmenteront. »

Cette désaffection du dépistage a déjà été observée en Australie[3], ainsi que le montre le tableau suivant qui donne l’évolution des pourcentages de dépistage selon les groupes d’âge.

 

Elle serait susceptible d’expliquer dans ce pays, au moins en partie la multiplication des cancers invasifs. Mais, dans cette hypothèse, ce serait les populations habituellement exposées, plus âgées, qui seraient touchées selon l’évolution naturelle de ce cancer, ce qui n’est pas le cas.  De plus, cet effet d’abandon du dépistage après vaccin n’a été observé, ni en Grande bretagne, ni en Suède où l’augmentation d’incidence des cancers du col a également été observée depuis la vaccination.

 

ET SI LE VACCIN FACILITAIT DIRECTEMENT LE CANCER ? ET COMMENT ?

 

La précocité de l’augmentation de l’incidence, dès la troisième ou quatrième année après la vaccination plaide cependant pour une action accélératrice directe du vaccin qui se comporterait comme un facilitateur du cancer du col, dont l’évolution naturelle nécessite plutôt 10 à 20 ans.

 

 Lien de causalité hautement probable entre accélération et multiplication de l’apparition des cancers et vaccin

En dehors des conditions expérimentales toujours éthiquement discutables chez l’homme, l’affirmation d’un lien de causalité entre deux facteurs statistiquement liés est toujours très difficile en médecine ; sa confirmation indirecte nécessite un faisceau d’arguments réunis ici : temporalité, gradient de dose /réponse, plausibilité, cohérence, analogie.

Le critère de temporalité est ici évidemment rempli : avant la période de   vaccination large, l’incidence diminuait. Elle n’a commencé à augmenter que 3 à 5 ans après le début de la campagne de vaccination.

Le critère dose-réponse est aussi présent : c’est dans les groupes d’âge les plus vaccinés que l’augmentation d’incidence est la plus élevée. Les groupes de femmes âgées, non vaccinées, ont vu leur incidence de cancer continuer à diminuer comme durant la période d’avant la vaccination. Les jeunes filles de France peu vaccinées ont vu aussi leur risque de cancer du col continuer à diminuer.

Un effet facilitateur des protéines du vaccin, qui sont des protéines du virus accusé d’être la cause du cancer, est tout à fait plausible, même si ce résultat clinique tragique va à l’opposé de ce qui était attendu et annoncé.

Rien dans ce que nous savons de l’histoire naturelle du cancer s’oppose à un éventuel lien de causalité vaccin/cancer. Le critère de cohérence est donc aussi rempli.

 

ACTION FACILITATRICE de maladies D’AUTANT PLUS PLAUSIBLE QUE DEJA OBSERVEE POUR D’AUTRES VACCINS (hépatite B, SIDA)

La crédibilité d’une action facilitatrice directe du vaccin sur le cancer du col est renforcée par l’analogie avec les accidents observés avec d’autres vaccins, en particulier le vaccin contre l’hépatite B. Les vaccins expérimentaux (abandonnés) contre le SIDA facilitaient l’apparition de la maladie immunitaire.

Vaccin anti hépatite B et cancer du foie : rêve, mythe et propagande

Rappelons notre premier chapitre : la vaccination anti hépatite promue pour son action anti cancer, a été suivie en France, comme aux USA, d’une augmentation considérable de l’incidence du cancer du foie, aboutissant à doubler son incidence en 20 ans en France (de 6.8 pour 100000 en 1995 à 13,6 en 2017)[4], à la quadrupler aux USA. Pourtant, en France la consommation d’alcool, principale cause de ce cancer, régressait considérablement dans la même période.

Il faut espérer que le Gardasil ne va pas faire autant exploser le nombre des cancers du col chez les jeunes filles vaccinées, comme notre examen des premiers résultats cancérologiques avérés à dix ans, le laisse fortement craindre.

Vaccin anti sida et effet paradoxal facilitateur, d’où son abandon à juste titre

La facilitation par un vaccin d’une maladie qu’il est censé combattre a déjà été observée dans les essais Step [5]et Phambili [6],  au cours desquels les vaccins à visée anti sida augmentaient de 50% le risque de contamination par rapport au placebo. Ces constatations ont été heureusement faites lors d’essais thérapeutiques bien conçus qui ont évité la mise sur le marché de ces vaccins dangereux.

Malheureusement les passe-droits invraisemblables qui ont entouré les essais[7], puis la mise sur le marché précipitée du Gardasil, alors qu’aucune preuve d’efficacité sur la maladie qu’il était censé traiter, de surcroit, en ignorant les conseils de prudence de nombreux chercheurs [8] [9] [10] [11] ont empêché d’éviter cette catastrophe à nos enfants.

 

[1] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books : cervical cancer Canberra : AIHW. <Http ://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[3] Alison C Budd, Julia M L Brotherton, Dorota M Gertig, Theresa Chau, Kelly T Drennan and Marion Saville Cervical screening rates for women vaccinated against human papillomavirus Med J Aust 2014 ; 201 (5) 279-282)

[4] Jéhannin-Ligier K, Dantony E, Bossard N, Molinié F, Defossez G, Daubisse-Marliac L, Delafosse P, Remontet L, Uhry Z. Projection de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France métropolitaine en 2017. Rapport technique. Saint-Maurice : Santé publique France, 2017. 80 p. Disponible à partir des URL : www.santepubliquefrance.fr et http://www.e-cancer.fr/

[5] Buchbinder SP, Mehrotra DV, Duerr A, et al. Efficacy assessment of a cell-mediated immunity HIV-1 vaccine (the Step Study) : a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, test-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2008 ; 372 :1881–1893. First Efficacy trial of a T-cell-based vaccine that failed to confer protection.

[6] Gray GE, Allen M, Moodie Z, et al. Safety and efficacy of the HVTN 503/Phambili study of a clade-B-based HIV-1 vaccine in South Africa : a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled test-of-concept phase 2b study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 ; 11 :507–515.

[7] Examen selon une procédure fast Track injustifiée par la maladie, utilisation de critères substitutifs dont la pertinence n’était pas connue, la redéfinition a posteriori de la population de l’essai…

[8] Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune K. HPV vaccination More answers, more questions. N Engl J Med 2007 356 1991-3

[9] C. J. Haug Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Reasons for Caution Editorial N Engl J Med 359 ;8 www.nejm.org August 21, 2008

[10] Lindsey R. Baden, M.D., Gregory D. Curfman, M.D.et al Human Papillomavirus Vaccine — Opportunity and Challenge N Engl J Med 356 ;19 www.nejm.1990 org May 10, 2007G7

[11]L R. Baden, G D. Curfman, S Morrissey, and J M. Drazen, M.D. Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Opportunity and Challenge N Engl j Med 356 ;19 www.nejm org May 10, 2007

 

Prévention globale, dépistage systématique et diagnostic précoce : trois notions à ne pas confondre

cliquez ici pour voir le diaporama dépistage Lyon SEPT 2018

Depuis plus d’un siècle, et singulièrement depuis les années 80, les médias et politiques utilisent le concept de prévention qui éviterait tous les malheurs médicaux pour promouvoir à grand renfort de propagande dépistages systématiques : sein, prostate, voir poumon et maintenant tout azimut avec les magnifiques tests sanguins !  Même les émissions littéraires s’en mêlent en invitant les promoteurs de test à 484 € !

Or si bien sûr le diagnostic précoce a bien amélioré les choses, ne laissant plus se développer de gros cancers qui arrivaient ulcérés, infectés, puants, chez le médecin, ceci ne doit pas être confondu avec la recherche obsessionnelle pour le sujet angoissé d’un petit cancer caché qu’on guérirait mieux, couplée à la recherche encore plus obsessionnelle des labos et affidés du profit basé sur la peur citoyenne et la promesse d’immortalité ou presque …  Sachons faire la différence !

Ce diaporama a été fabriqué dans cette optique et n’hésitez pas à lire les articles des liens proposés. Bonne lecture

Gardasil au coeur des manipulations médiatiques pour imposer l’obligation

lire en urgence sur agoravox

https://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/sante/article/gardasil-nouvelles-salves-de-207464

Gardasil : nouvelles salves de publicités trompeuses et/ou manipulatrices. Décodons les « fake news »

lire notre dénonciation des nombreuses fausses nouvelles qui se multiplient sur les grands médias  (presse écrite aussi bien que TV ) pour faire croire à l’efficacité préventive du Gardasil sur l’apparition des cancers du col et la prétention de prévenir aussi des cancers ORL liés à des pratiques sexuelles plus répandues.

Malheureusement ce ne sont que « fake news » : le Gardasil non seulement a de graves effets secondaires bien détaillés par d’autres (page Danger Gardasil sur FB par exemple ) mais malheureusement s’avère augmenter le nombre de cancers du col chez la femme jeune vaccinée. Effet délétère évidemment non prévu mais que les études internationales démontrent. Restons donc prudents avant d’accepter une obligation aveugle à ces éléments scientifiques nouveaux.

Nous invitons les lecteurs, et tout particulièrement les médecins à se pencher sur la littérature médicale jointe à tous nos tribunes sur Gardasil.

Cancer du col utérin et Gardasil : effet paradoxal, le vaccin augmente le taux de cancer chez les femmes vaccinées

Effet paradoxal du Gardasil, accélérateur de l’apparition de cancers du col utérin chez les jeunes femmes

 lire article in extenso sur le site agoravox, lien ci- dessus

 

en résumé :

Période pré-vaccinale et dépistage par frottis : diminution nette du nombre de cancers du col

Dans tous les pays qui ont pratiqué le dépistage par frottis, la période pré vaccinale de 1989 à 2007 a été marquée par une diminution très significative du taux standardisé d’incidence du cancer du col de l’utérus, avec un taux moyen de décroissance de 2.5 % entre 1989 et 2000 et un ralentissement de cette baisse à 1% (mais toujours significative) entre 2000 et 2007.

Période post-vaccinale : inversion de la tendance : depuis la vaccination, on observe, dans les pays qui ont mis en œuvre un programme de vaccination, un retournement de tendance avec augmentation significative de la fréquence des cancers invasifs dans les groupes les plus vaccinés.

 Taux de vaccination élevé corrélé statistiquement à l’augmentation rapide du nombre de femmes atteintes de cancer du col.

 

Ainsi dans tous les pays qui ont atteint un taux de couverture vaccinale anti HPV élevée, les registres officiels du cancer révèlent une augmentation de l’incidence des cancers invasifs du col de l’utérus, qui apparaît 3 à 5 ans après le début de la campagne de vaccination et qui affecte exclusivement les groupes d’âge qui ont été les plus vaccinés.

 

 

 

 

Gardasil : the anticancer vaccination that increases the risk of cervical cancer in young women

Gardasil alert, imminent risk of unnecessary and sometimes dangerous HPV vaccination for girls and boys.

Mon July 23, 2018 https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314#_ftnref25

By  Gérard Delépine, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon/Oncologist/statistician

English translation  by  Steve Hinks    steve@hinksfamily.co.uk . In 2015  co-founded the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) share huge amounts of information obtained in particular by Freedom of Information Act requests and Parliamentary questions. 

http://docteur.nicoledelepine.fr/

Open letter to parliamentarians, and to all citizens.

BE CAREFUL. While many doctors, foreign and French, citizens, patients sometimes victims, have been trying to inform for many years about the uselessness and the risks of the HPV vaccine, a new offensive of the pharmaceutical lobbies led again some MPs to try to introduce laws to make it a compulsory vaccination, already probably the most widespread in the world.

We have analysed the benefit-risk of this vaccine originally intended for women, but boys are likely to be targeted as well and denounced several times its uselessness coupled with its risks. both in women and in men. The time spent since FDA’s marketing authorization in June 2006 only adds new arguments against this vaccination, the strongest of which is the increase in the number of cervical cancers in the vaccinated population. which should encourage these countries to follow the example of Japan and Austria and to delete the recommendation.

Attention, some MPs want to impose a vaccination that can increase the risk of cervical cancer, as proven by international publications of national cancer registries.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED LAW WHICH MAY MAKE GARDASIL COMPULSORY

The preamble to the bill is based on the usual arguments of pharmaceutical companies widely disseminated by the media and their comfortably paid experts.

This preamble certainly recalls some indisputable true facts: there are more than one hundred HPV strains, the vaccines possibly protect against infection by the 4 to 9 strains included in the vaccine (only 2 to 5% of the 200 known strains ), against genital warts and some dysplasia’s without specifying that there is no evidence that it protects against cancer.

It is extremely disturbing to read in the presentation of opinion justifying the proposed law a number of known untruths:

« There are more than one hundred and twenty kinds of human papillomavirus (HPV), and fifteen are considered to be at high risk because they can cause cancers including HPV 16 and 18 causing 70% of infections. » But this only demonstrates a statistical correlation between presence of HPV and cancer, without anyone being so far able to demonstrate a direct CAUSALITY link.

« There are effective HPV vaccines. Current vaccines offer effective vaccination against 70% of carcinogenic HPV, and a new vaccine will soon increase this rate to 90%. » But, what do MPs mean by efficiency? the vaccine is effective on the infections of strains targeted by the vaccine (only 4 to 9 of the nearly 200 listed strains) but there is no evidence that it can prevent invasive cancer let alone avoid death by this cancer.

Citing Australia as a vaccine success story: « In Australia, where 80% of women and 75% of men are vaccinated, cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared ».  But, this statement is outrageous, as the following presentation will show you, because in this highly vaccinated country the number of cervical cancers (and other cancers attributed to HPV) continue to increase.

They also deny the risk of serious side effects that have led to protests in many countries (Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Colombia) and legal complaints from doctors against the EMA.

WHAT SHOULD IT EXPLAIN TO PARLIAMENTARIANS?

The regular smear (every three years) better guarantees early detection of cervical cancer.

In France, HPV infection is not a real public health problem in 2018, neither for women nor for men. In women, since smear screening has been used, the annual number of deaths from cervical cancer is consistently less than 1000 in France, and the women who die are almost exclusively those who have not been screened.

Diagnosis of HPV papillomavirus infection detected by systematic sampling should be avoided! Positive results often lead to unnecessary examination and very early conisation (biopsy) which is often useless.

The <1000 deaths per year from cervical cancer could all have been prevented by screening, Compare this with lung cancer (23,000 deaths), breast cancer (11,883 deaths), or prostate cancer (8,207 deaths) [15] .

Whilst efficacy of smear screening is proven, HPV vaccination not been proven to prevent a single invasive cervical cancer. The cancer registry records even suggest that this vaccine is sometimes likely to increase the risk.

INSTEAD OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CERVICAL CANCERS, IT INCREASES SOMETIMES

Curiously, the MPs who signed the bill do not talk about the proven results of the vaccine on the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, its only official justification.

Instead of reducing the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, HPV vaccines keep it at a high level or increase it!

After 12 years of use and more than 200 million girls vaccinated worldwide for a total bill of nearly $100 billion paid directly or indirectly by citizens , we can indeed draw a balance of effectiveness of vaccination in two ways:

1 °) By examining the evolution of the incidence (annual frequency of new cases per 100,000 women) of the invasive cancer of the cervix in each country, before and after vaccination, a method already validated in 2003.

2 °) World Standardised Rates: gross Incidence reported as « Standard World Population » to correct possible biases related to the demographic characteristics of each  country

The evolution of the incidence of cervical cancer before and after vaccination with Gardasil can be traced in a perfectly reliable way in the national cancer registries controlled and published by the ministries of health of the concerned countries.

 

Australia, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the incidence of cervical cancer declined by almost 50%, from 12(/100,000) in 1995 to 7 in 2004 (before the vaccination campaign). Mortality also improved, thanks to smear screening and treatment. However, since the vaccination campaign started in 2007, there has been no further decrease in either incidence or mortality. In 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer is estimated at 7.1 and cervical cancer mortality has increased by almost 15% from 1.7 in 2014 to 2 in 2017. And our MPs quote Australian efficiency!

The Australian Ministry of Health estimates the number of new cases of cervical cancer is 912 in 2017 and 930 in 2018. Claiming, like our MPs, that « cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared » in Australia is therefore not correct.  One cannot imagine that these MPs lie voluntarily, so we can conclude that they are poorly informed and that they should have checked themselves the information provided by the experts related to laboratories before distributing this « fake new ».

Great Britain, according to Cancer Research UK, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to smear screening) from 12.4 in 1995 to 9.27 in 2004. But since vaccination, there is no longer any evidence of improvement, nor on the incidence stagnating from 9.3 in 2006 to 9.6 in 2015 nor on the mortality remaining at 3.

Canada. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, the incidence of cervical cancer has decreased (through screening) from 18 in 1972 to 8.1 in 2008. But since vaccination, there has been no further progress on incidence stagnating at 8.3 in 2017.

United States, according to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER cancer statistics review, the incidence of cervical cancer reduced from 14.8 in 1975 to 6.66 in 2007. But since vaccination, there has been no decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer reached 6.68 in 2015 .

Norway, according to the Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo:  before vaccination, the standardized incidence had fallen sharply thanks to smear screening from 24 in 1965 to 7 in 2004. But since the vaccination, it goes up to 13.9 in 2014 and 14.9 in 2015.

Sweden, according to the National Kvalitetsregister for Cervix Cancer prevention (NKCx ): before the vaccination campaign, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to screening) from 18 in 1967 to 7 in 2006. The worldwide standardized incidence of cervical cancer has increased significantly since vaccination rising to 10.3 in 2012 and 11.5 in 2015. This increase is almost exclusively due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancer among women aged 23 to 49, which has reached more than 50% since 2006 (11 in 2006 versus 17 in 2015), whereas it is those who have the highest vaccination coverage rate (85%).

Thus, in countries whose populations have access to smear screening, it has led to a considerable reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer (from 40 to 60%). In contrast, the introduction of vaccination has not reduced the incidence or mortality of cervical cancer. Contrary to what is promised by laboratory-related physicians and by many global health authorities, vaccination campaigns have even been followed by an increase in the incidence of cancer.

France, with low levels of HPV vaccination, can serve as a control country. According to Public Health France, the incidence of cervical cancer in mainland France has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017. France, with low use of Gardasil, has a much more satisfactory evolution for both incidence and mortality than that of the countries cited as example by the MPs who want to impose vaccination.

Comparison of recent standardized incidences with vaccination coverage rates.

Immunization advocates claim that a high vaccination coverage rate reduces the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix. Yet the comparison of incidence and mortality rates with vaccine coverage rates shows the opposite:

Australia, HPV vaccination coverage exceeds 85% , but in 2017 the incidence of cervical cancer is 7 and the mortality is 2

Great Britain, despite vaccination coverage exceeding 80%, the incidence in 2015 was 9.6 and mortality 3

Sweden the vaccination coverage rate is close to 75% but the incidence 2015 reaches 11.5.

USA, in 2017 the vaccination coverage rate is 60% for a cervical cancer incidence of 6.8 and a specific mortality at 2.3.

France , in 2017, HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15% ) for a cervical cancer incidence of 6 and a specific mortality of 1.7

In countries with high immunization coverage, the incidence of invasive cancers and mortality are therefore higher than in France, and compulsory immunisation proposed by some MPs would eliminate this French paradox that protects our children!

 

The harmful side-effects are difficult to deny

In their preamble, the MPs deny that Gardasil can lead (as any treatment) to complications while Japan, Austria and Denmark have stopped promoting this vaccination after serious complications, sometimes even fatal and that families suffering from these vaccines organized public demonstrations in several countries of the world (Japan, Colombia, Ireland), and that Danish doctors lodged a complaint against the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which refused to answer the questions they asked. after the notification of severe neurological events not listed in the EMA registers.

In France, several lawsuits are in progress.

« Among the most frequently mentioned by the victims defended by M pathologies e Coubris include multiple sclerosis, lupus, disseminated acute encephalomyelitis (inflammation of the central nervous system) and myofasciitis macrophages (a disease that results in pain muscle and chronic fatigue) ». A parliamentary commission of inquiry which could hear experts, citizens and independent associations of laboratories, having, from near or far, no link of interest with laboratories, would be a first step to enlighten Parliament.

IN CONCLUSION, the benefit-risk balance is not in favour of vaccination, let alone compulsory.

A compulsory health measure should not be based on faith in vaccination or hidden conflicts of interest, but on proven facts, verifiable by every citizen. However, the facts established by the official records of cancer registries show that HPV vaccination does not protect against invasive cancer of the cervix but seems rather to maintain its frequency at a high level, and sometimes even increase it.

Let us fight against this bill that threatens our children, by informing everyone, our MP, our senator, our elected officials, that no one may be unaware.

Only this work of proximity of each citizen this summer, will be able to avoid this new catastrophe of return which could be the anti-HPV vaccination, as it has been and still is the obligation of vaccination against hepatitis B.

Let’s apply the precautionary principle! Let us respect the right of every human being to informed choice/consent for medical interventions!