Gaurdasil

Should young girls get the gaurdasil vaccine or not? I have recently been asked that.

All the marketing done on tv and to medical doctors says, of course, yes. This is a counter argument, and it is the best, most thorough I have found. One of the best arguments I have found in the article is that since it is men who are passing around the HPV virus, why aren't men getting inoculated as well, or instead of? The second argument is that there are several HPV viruses, each varying in carcinogenic capability, and, according to this article, the vaccine doesn't even protect against 16 of them. (see paragraph 11 and 12). The third argument that made me think, was in paragraph13, that the Centers for Disease Control claim most women clear most of the HPV strains on their own, with no symptoms. Fourth, paragraphs 15, 16, and 17: with annual pap smears, all cervical cancer should be 100% curable, and this is according to the Natinal Cancer Institute website. The author adds that annual pap smears are much more inexpensive than the vaccine.

The vaccine has only been out two years, and the authors question the long term side effects.

I got this from http://www.hpvtruth.org. Here is the article for you to read:



Gardasil Risks, Questions
A synopsis of the book “On Guard: Garadasil” by Dr Ralph W Moss
Recently, in America, certain political figures have unilaterally decided to instigate legislation making it mandatory for all 11-12 year old school girls in the State of Texas, to be vaccinated with Gardasil, which has been created by Merck Inc. to protect against cervical cancer, but which only covers 4 out of the 20 or so strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) – i.e. types 6,11, 16 & 18 – known to cause cervical cancer. Now, 31 other USA States are also debating the introduction of similar Bills, mandating Gardasil vaccination to young girls – in the US this would mean around 150 million people.

On the surface – despite the dictatorial aspects of this decision – it may seem that this would be a good thing; i.e. doing something pro-actively to minimize the death in women from cervical cancer. However, scratch the surface of this recent political intervention into a medical arena and one realizes that there is more behind this new and apparently humanitarian driven incentive, than the desire to prevent unnecessary deaths among women.

Let’s explore this situation a bit more closely. The viruses capable of causing cervical cancer are ubiquitous in our Western culture and can only be transmitted through direct sexual contact. Most people exposed to this style of virus are able to clear it from their system rather easily, providing them with immunity and no further problems

The next important factor is that where the virus is not cleared by the body, it usually causes a slow disease process, which is easy enough to find and monitor using present medical techniques, such as the PAP Smear. If this is done on a regular and persistent basis, no one needs to die of this form of cancer.

Dr. Moss argues that there are sufficient unknowns about this vaccine, which alone should alert us to being cautious about jumping onto the bandwagon too rapidly. And these points are discussed below. However, some of the other reasons being presented by medicine, as to why this vaccine should be embraced by the community, don’t fully stack up either. Let’s look at some of these issues.

The main reason authorities want to inoculate such a large proportion of the population is because they believe that if sufficient numbers are “protected,” then the disease organism being vaccinated against has less chance of actually causing infection in that population. This creates what scientists call, “herd immunity.” But for this strategy to work effectively, it also becomes vital that the entire at-risk population maintains a high degree of on-going immunity via vaccination. And there are a few serious flaws with this model of disease prevention, because for this concept of “herd immunity” to work, it is crucial that the entire male population be inoculated too, as they constitute the primary reservoir of infection, from which women can continuously become re-infected. Indeed, if this is so, why are young boys and all males not being targeted for vaccination too? Why is it that yet again – as with contraception – it’s women who are forced to bear the brunt of it all?

But it gets even more bizarre! One could – at a stretch of the imagination – argue that this principle might work, if every sexually active person - both male and female – were to be vaccinated, as well as guaranteed to strictly maintain their vaccination status every so many years. However, what about all the millions of tourists which enter into the States (or Australia – because what is being written about here equally applies to us) every year?

Every single one of them would have to be vaccinated – and this would have to be organized well in advance to such a visit, to ensure the vaccine had already “taken.” And what about the 11-12 million illegal immigrants entering the States? Such a goal therefore of “herd immunity,” can be seen to be an impossibility, despite intensive efforts and costing billions of dollars.

Government knows that this concept cannot work, yet it maintains its stance on mandatory vaccination for all young school girls. Is there another reason driving this seemingly valid desire to eliminate a real and potentially dangerous cancer?

Let’s also look at some interesting statistics. As Ralph Moss states in his eBook “On Guard – Gardasil,” P.5, “….a 2007 study from the CDC in the USA shows that 1 in 4 US women aged 14 to 59 are infected with some form of the papillomavirus.” It seems that as many as 80% of women are infected with a strain of this virus by the time they reach 50, but the crucial point to understand is that only 3.4 % of these women are actually living with a strain of this virus i.e. type 6, 11, 16 or 18, most capable of causing cancer and covered by the Gardasil Vaccine.

The majority of strains found in women is non-cancer causing and out of the 20 or so strains capable of causing cancer, it is crucial to understand that Gardasil only protects against 4 of these! So out of the 80% of women infected with papillomavirus, only 3.4% would be covered by the Vaccine. This vaccine doesn’t protect against strains 31, 32 or 45, nor against at least another 9 others which are known to be strongly associated with cervical cancer.

So let’s state this again as clearly as possible: according to the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the reality is that although almost 80% of women in the States will be infected with some strain of the human papillomavirus by the time they are 50 years old, the great majority are by harmless strains, incapable of causing cancer. Then, out of the 20 or so strains actually capable of causing cancer, stains 6, 11, 16 & 18 (the only four prevented by Gardasil), were found in a scant 3.4% of this population of women. And the two most carcinogenic strains – 16 & 18 – were found in only 1.6% of this study group of women.

Let’s repeat again, Gardasil does not protect against the other 16 strains known to cause cervical cancer.

Another point that bears repeating is the low virulence of these viruses, in most cases. As Ralph Moss states: (“On Guard – Gardasil,” P.6) “…while human papiloma virus is certainly widespread in the population, the vast majority of people who contract it, to quote the Centers for Disease Control, 'will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own.'“

So why the mandatory vaccination of all school girls, for an infection which almost always clears up on its own and generally causes no health problems? Especially when a far cheaper approach of regular PAP Smears is more than capable of picking up any early cervical changes caused by this virus, which are then very treatable, thus preventing any progression towards cancer?

The PAP Smear test is also capable of finding HPV in the sample of tissue scraped off the cervix, thus alerting the patient and their doctor for more pro-actively intensive testing and monitoring, even if there are as yet no cervical changes found via the test. Indeed, the PAP Smear test has been a major factor allowing cervical cancer incidence to decrease by 80% in the USA over the last decades.

Cervical cancer is usually very slow to progress (it may take decades for most women with HPV to develop any frank cancer). Regular PAP Smear monitoring – plus some naturopathic intervention, especially the regular use of such vitamins as folic acid; B12; Vit. A; CoQ10 and Kelp – amongst others – are more than capable of observing these changes before they become a health problem as well as enormously minimizing the initiation of cervical changes through the use of such nutrients.

Again, as Dr. Moss states (“On Guard – Gardasil,” P.7), “….According to the US National Library of Medicine's Health Services/Technology Assessment text: 'Generally, the progression to invasive cancer follows a slow, predictable pattern…30 – 70% of untreated patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) will develop invasive carcinoma in 10-12 years.'”

In other words, as Dr. Moss states:- (“On Guard – Gardasil,” P.7), “...The US National Cancer Institute website (www.cancer.gov) states: “Properly treated, tumor control of in situ cervical carcinoma should be nearly 100 percent...In other words, there are few things in oncology as certain as the cure of premalignant changes in the cervix!” Wish that other cancers were so predictably curable!

PAP Smears have a very low rate of false negatives, so it is most unlikely that cancerous changes wouldn’t be found where a woman is having regular testing done. There is a very small percentage of woman where the cervical lesion is found to be more aggressive and rapid in onset, but even here treatment inevitably is very successful.

All this is quite contrary to Merck’s P.R. program, which tends to insinuate that HPV is a major and urgent health crisis in the States (& therefore in Australia), for which they have now created a very successful answer. But that is in fact far from the truth and hardly a basis from which to then demand the mandatory vaccination of entire populations (in the USA).

As Dr. Moss states: (“On Guard – Gardasil” P.28 “...Merck knows how to play this game [of disease mongering] skillfully, and fear is its foremost weapon. The New York Times quoted Margaret McGlynn, Merck’s president for vaccines, as saying: 'Each and every day that a female delays getting the vaccine there is a chance she is exposed to human papillomavirus.'” (Saul. 2007)

On one level that is indeed true, but in reality this is nothing but an hysterical approach, aimed at scaring people onto the vaccine. It must be emphasized yet again that all of us are exposed to about 100 forms of HPV from birth onwards and it is estimated that 80% of women (if not men) have been able to generate their own natural immunity to these viruses, allowing it to be cleared of its own accord and giving us natural immunity for the future.

As Dr. Moss states:((“On Guard – Gardasil” P.28) “...Thus to say that each and every day that you delay getting Gardasil you are putting yourself at risk is scientific gobblygook.”

Along with the frequent and regular use of the PAP Smear, the regular and consistent use of condoms for any sexual activity outside of a monogamous relationship, has also been proven via a study, to further decrease the risk of contracting the HPV virus by 70%.

Another way women can minimize cervical cancer is to look at a range of lifestyle issues:

Stop smoking! A Utah study showed smokers have a 3.42 times greater chance of developing cervical cancer. This applies to those exposed to passive smoking too.


Diet is definitely known to have protective advantages, with studies showing that those eating a diet high in vegetables had at least a 50 % smaller chance of developing cervical cancer. Lycopene was identified as one major nutrient capable of this sort of protection. Clinical evidence also shows that cervical changes can be reversed by some of the nutrients mentioned earlier in this article.


Maintaining a healthy immune system – again via diet, exercise, lifestyle factors and the use of various nutrients and herbs – favors less likelihood of developing abnormal cell formation on the cervix. HIV; chronic use of cortisone, alcohol abuse or frequent use of recreational drugs are known to have negative impacts on immune function.
While it is true that nothing in life is absolutely certain, nevertheless by incorporating some of the suggestions above into one’s lifestyle, the chances of developing cervical cancer – even if you do get infected by the HPV virus – is hugely reduced. And as mentioned earlier, even if cancerous changes do occur and are found by regular PAP Smears, then treatment of such changes is virtually guaranteed to prevent the cancer progressing any further. Especially if a complementary naturopathic approach is also included in the overall treatment plan.

These simple yet effective alternate approaches to cervical cancer surely preclude the need to now go and vaccinate entire populations of young women, when indeed we don’t even know the long-term effects of such vaccines either. We are assured by science that these vaccines are entirely safe, yet caution should also remind us that we were similarly assured regarding the safety of DDT; asbestos; lead in petrol; smoking, HRT; Vioxx and hot off the ranks, now Stilnox…and the list goes on.

Keep in mind that it was Merck (the makers of Gardasil!) who manufactured Vioxx and as per the FDA's own conclusions, it’s estimated that Vioxx killed 27,785 people via heart attacks and sudden cardiac death, between 1999 & 2003.

Historically, we do know for sure how the FDA also got it very wrong about another vaccine called “RotaShield,” again made by Merck! This vaccine, originally deemed safe by the FDA, was later found to increase the incidence of a type of bowel obstruction in vaccinated infants. A subsequent variation-on-a-theme vaccine called RotaTeq – again claimed to be safe by the FDA and approved for sale – was later found to also increase the exact same style of bowel obstruction in vaccinated infants.

It does highlight the potential dangers of deciding to willy-nilly mandate compulsory vaccination in a huge portion of a population, when the vaccine has only just been released and so much about its potential for side-effects simply isn’t known yet. Surely prudence would suggest that if any compulsory vaccination program were to be instigated, that this should only be done after sufficient years of clinical experience with this vaccine, within the general community has accrued? These points however, also relate to whether individual women or girls should be jumping for this vaccine too quickly!

A further complication in the claims being made for the effectiveness of this vaccine, is the reality that in both treated and placebo groups, no incidence of cervical cancer were found. Not surprising, as the trial was over such a relatively short period of time – maximum 4 years – and as cervical cancer is such a slowly developing condition, this is not unexpected.

However, it is the flow-on from this reality and how Merck then interpreted the results that is of concern. As Dr. Moss states: “...Approval was given based on an extrapolation from conditions known only to be associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer...It is believed that prevention of cervical precancerous lesions is highly likely to result in the prevention of those cancers.” (FDA 2006 – emphasis added). So are we now mandating vaccines for half the population based on an unproven premise that is “believed” to be “highly likely?” (“On Guard – Gardasil,” P.18) How scientific is that?

Trial results also strongly indicated that “...Gardasil has not been shown to protect against the [already present] diseases caused by all HPV types and will not treat existing disease caused by the HPV types contained in the vaccine.” (“On Guard – Gardasil,” P.19 – emphasis added). In other words, if you are already infected with HPV, then the vaccine is of no use and having yourself inoculated only opens you up to all the unknowns and concerns about this vaccine, with none of the purported benefits.

Merck however will argue that Gardasil does more than prevent cervical cancer. It supposedly also prevents genital warts – another form of venereal disease. Here again, although genital warts are no fun, they are hardly life-threatening and more often than not resolve spontaneously – especially when certain naturopathic interventions are utilized. There are also a range of medical interventions which have been shown to provide a relatively good resolution to this problem.

Yet, just because a vaccine can protect against such a venereal disease, is it not better to then offer this vaccine selectively to highly sexually active people, rather than inoculate entire populations of people? Particularly when US politicians now seem to want to make such vaccines mandatory?

Dr. Moss also expresses hesitation about some of the safety issues around the use of Gardasil. The long-term consequences simply aren’t known – follow-up of trial participants were only over 18 months to 4 years. When contemplating the mandatory mass inoculation of young women, such a time span hardly gets most of these “guinea-pigs” into their early twenties and leaves a lot of life-years ahead for which there simply is no safely data. But we do already know that vaccinations of any kind are a very controversial issue, with much data accumulating, strongly suggesting that any vaccines can have distinctly negative consequences on our health.

Indeed, when one looks at the trial data, there was a small but distinct increase in a range of arthritis – from juvenile to rheumatoid to osteo to reactive arthritis – in the Gardasil group compared to the placebo group. And juvenile rheumatoid arthritis can be a totally debilitating disease,capable of not just maiming, but slowly killing its victims.

The other troublesome point is that there is no data available to definitely guarantee that the vaccine has durability beyond 5 years. We do know that other vaccines “run out” after time and need to be repeated. Tetanus vaccines are but one example. This may equally be so for Gardasil – we simply don’t know yet. In turn such repeated vaccinations mean extra cost as well as the potential for extra side-effects. Hence, beyond 5 years, people already vaccinated will have to do regular blood tests to determine their vaccination status. More costs.

Another issue not made clear by Merck is that although there were 20,000 young women used in the trials, less than 1,200 were under 16 years of age and even fewer were at the age of puberty, which is the target age for the mandatory vaccination program in the USA and the primary target age for vaccination in Australia. So we are left with a situation where the very people chosen for vaccination, are also the very group about which Merck has the least amount of data via the clinical trials!

The bottom line is that the entire situation surrounding the use of Gardasil, is filled with a lot of “ifs” and “buts.” Certainly not enough of a crystal clear basis from which to be mandating for compulsory vaccination of all young school girls - (in the US). And at an economic cost of between US$450 – 550 for the three necessary vaccinations (in the US), multiplied by millions of people proposed to be the compulsory target of this vaccine, (in the US the cost is estimated to be about $1 billion – repeated each year for the next batch of young school children!) one can hardly be blamed for being even a bit cynical as to what is truly driving this sudden urge to vaccinate large portions of the population.

Indeed, Wall Street analysts have already projected Gardasil sales at US$4 billion annually!

Such cynicism is especially valid when the scientific reality is that this vaccine can’t fully protect against the development of cervical cancer, due to it only covering 4 out of the potential 20 or so stains known to cause cancer. Let alone unanswered questions about long-term safety.

Dr. Moss has indicated in his eBook that to protect a woman from adolescence to later in life, with the high probability that the vaccine will require boosters, and then working out the cost of saving just one life, the figure comes out to be about US$1,946,280 per person — almost 2 million dollars i.e. projected costs will be about US$2 million for saving just one life from cervical cancer!

Indeed, what price life? But surely a much more economic — and already long proven — solution to the problem of preventing cervical cancer, would be to use such proposed funds towards the dramatically lower costing it would take to provide regular, free PAP Smears to all woman, from early on.

Now it is up to you to decide whether you still wish you — or your children — to be exposed to yet another of Merck’s potential “health time-bombs.” Now you also know that there are other, proven alternatives to preventing cervical cancer, at far less cost and far less potential for known — and as yet unknown — side-effect risks.