Objections to Gardasil HPV Vaccine

Dawn Richardson, Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education (PROVE)

On Thursday, June 29th, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued a unanimous decision to recommend vaccinating all preteen (11 and 12 year old) girls with multiple doses of the new HPV vaccine.

Many months prior to the vote, those in favor of the vaccine had mounted an impressive but dangerous distraction campaign of focusing the media on the “morality” issues of the vaccine to distract and suppress public debate on the very real outstanding safety and efficacy questions.

The following excellent objection to giving adolescent girls the HPV vaccine “Gardasil” is written by a Texas Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist who is also the father of vaccine injured children. Share this with family, friends, and especially your health providers so they can look at this objectively instead of under the influence of the marketing by the manufacturer who is now poised to make billions of dollars without any responsibility for the harm they may cause. Remember – everytime ACIP puts a new vaccine on the schedule, it invokes IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR THE VACCINE MANUFACTURER – parents won’t be able to file a lawsuit against MERCK for the injuries and health problems this vaccine may cause their daughter.

Additionally, another very well written piece outlining even more concerns on the HPV vaccine was put out by the National Vaccine Information Center.

Together, these two pieces ought to make parents really think about whether or not they want this shot given to their daughter. Please pass this on.

OBGYN Against ACIP HPV Vaccine Decision

I am a Board Certified Obstetrician Gynecologist and have several objections to the ACIP “recommendations”.

Most of the following is taken directly form the Gardasil package insert.

First, the endpoint is the prevention of “High Grade disease”, this encompasses CIN II-III and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) which are “immediate and necessary precursors” for squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the cervix. The MAXIMUM of the median follow up in any of their studies is FOUR years. However, the time course from CIN III to invasive cancer averages between 8.1 to 12.6 years. Claiming this vaccine “prevents cervical cancer”, with the longest median study subject being 4 years, is ludicrous.

Furthermore, the vast majority of women clear or suppress the virus to levels not associated with CIN II or III and for most women this occurs promptly. The duration of HPV positivity (which is directly related to the likelihood of developing a high grade lesion or cervical cancer) is shorter, and the likelihood of clearance is higher, in younger women.

Therefore, vaccinating these children against HPV with a vaccine that is of unknown duration of efficacy will only postpone their exposure to an age which they are less likely clear the infection on their own and be subject to more severe disease. This would require an unknown number of boosters and is a setup for complacency in the older population that is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, the likelihood for regression to a normal pap from CIN II is 40%. This beats Gardasil’s “best” reduction of CIN II-III of only 12%. In this case, “first do no harm” rules.

Furthermore the vaccine only “protects” against 4 high risk HPV subtypes. We are currently screening for 13 “high risk” HPV subtypes. This may lead to an increase in infection with other and possibly more aggressive subtypes.

The study of the vaccine in children and adolescents is limited to only measuring the development of antibodies to the HPV subtypes in the vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence that the vaccine prevents anything when administered at this young age. Merck expects you to extrapolate their adult data to the immune response in children. If they were really interested in vaccine efficacy in children, should it not be studied properly in children?

Currently, precancerous lesions are readily identifiable and treatable in the developed world. The only utility of this vaccine may be in third world countries in which regular screening is not available and cervical cancer is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. All of the data reported and advertised by Merck is based on world wide morbidity and mortality related to cervical cancer. Nowhere will you find specific data related to developed nations.

I have personally witnessed the devastation caused by severe vaccine reaction, including patients, their children, nurses and my own family. To proceed with mass vaccination against this embellished “threat” is irresponsible.

Clayton Young, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.

PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education) prove@vaccineinfo.net (email) http://vaccineinfo.net (website)
PROVE provides information on vaccines, and immunization policies and practices that affect the children and adults of Texas. Our mission is to prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the right of every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their family.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top