Gardisil pointless and dangerous? Merck researcher shares shocking info.

The Population Research Institute* is reporting on some shocking statements made by Dr. Diane Harper,  the leading international developer of the HPV vaccine, at the 4th Annual Public Conference on Vaccination on Gardisil the vaccine touted to prevent cervical cancer from HPV infections.

Here are some statistics that this Merck representative reportedly shared at this conference, taken directly from the Population Research Institute's article:

• 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
• After two years, this rate climbs to 90%.
• Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
• 4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries (i.e. not the United States or Canada)
• 8 in 100,000 women will get cervical cancer.
• 1.3-3.7 will die from it.
• The cancer rate has been declining by 4% every year, since between 1955 to 1992 when the rate declined 74%, without any influence from a vaccine. [Link to American Cancer Society]
• There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until 70% of the population is vaccinated.
• The highest amount of decrease in cervical cancer will not be seen for 60 years.
• After 60 years, the highest predicted decrease will be 70%.
• No efficacy trials have been done on girls under 15.
• Merck did study a group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.
• If a child is vaccinated, she will not keep immunity until puberty and will need boosters.
• 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
• Adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others.
• The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.
• Dr. Harper  told ABC News that "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

So, why is Merck aggressively marketing this vaccine in the United States and Canada if 4 out of 5 cases of cervical cancer are in developing nations if the effects won't be seen for 60 years and will only show at most a 70% reduction and only if 70% of the population is vaccinated?  Because Merck cares about the individual?  If Merck can help just a handful of people it will all be worth it?  It has nothing to do with making billions of dollars?  Why are schools in the United States making the vaccine a requirement of school attendance?  Have STDs recently become contractible from the passing of notes and the sharing of pencils? 

Only 5% of women who get HPV will get cervical cancer and only 1.3-3.7 will die from it.  That's not 5% of all women.  That's 5% of all women who even get HPV.   Let's not forget that contracting HPV is ENTIRELY preventable.  For the girls and women for whom a 100% protection rate is not worth, for whatever reason, the abstinence, there's condoms.  And condoms have a much higher rate of protection from STDs than Gardisil, apparently.

Now, yes, not every girl will be educated or empowered enough to use condoms or abstinence and might suffer terrible consequences for her actions.  This is sad and I understand the desire to provide a net to catch her in case she falls.  But the above statistics and the following information makes me doubt the risks of Gardisil are worth the attempt to provide a net.

The Population Research Institute article says:

"The numbers of deaths and adverse effects are undoubtedly underestimates. Dr. Harper’s comments to ABC News concur with the National Vaccine Information Center’s claim that “though nearly 70 percent of all Gardasil reaction reports were filed by Merck, a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.”11 On average, less than 10 percent—perhaps even less than 1 percent—of serious vaccine adverse events are ever reported, according to the American Journal of Public Health.1"

My conclusion for my three daughters is that this is fear marketing for the purpose of making billions of dollars.  Of course the product will have to work at least a little for at least some, or there would be nothing to market at all.  But just because something works a little bit for a few people doesn't mean it's worth touting and certainly doesn't mean that schools should be pushing it on to parents of children as young as 9 and 10, without divulging all reported statistics, particularly when the vaccine won't even be effective in a few years when they might possibly be sexually active.  That booster they will have to get might as well be the vaccine itself but then Merck will lose half of their revenue. 

*Founded in 1989, the Population Research Institute is a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to objectively presenting the truth about population-related issues, and to reversing the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries.

This is an original Canada Moms Blog Post.  Natasha Loewen can be found at Becoming Something and on Twitter.