By  Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine may increase the prevalence and distribution of some HPV virus strains not targeted by the vaccine — including some strains that are linked to cancer, according to a study published last week in Cell Host & Microbe. But STATNews misleadingly, according to experts, concluded the study showed the vaccine was effective at preventing cancer.

The study was not designed to show that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer or that HPV or cervical cancer screenings need to change, though the authors did include a brief, speculative mention of the potential implications of their findings for future screening.

Yet STATNews, reporting on the study, said the findings showed that the HPV vaccine is so effective at preventing cancers — particularly when both boys and girls are vaccinated — that cancer-screening protocols may need to change.

Kim Mack Rosenberg, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) acting general counsel and co-author of “The HPV Vaccine On Trial: Seeking Justice For A Generation,” told The Defender the STATNews story was misleading:

“The STATNews headline — misguidedly suggesting even less frequent screening — is deeply troubling. Statistics in the U.S. and elsewhere suggest that cervical cancer is on the rise in younger age cohorts where we least expect to see cervical cancer, while continuing to decline in the older populations where cervical cancer historically is diagnosed.

[…]

‘Imminent risk of viral evolutionary responses’ may ‘introduce problems’

The study included approximately 11,000 — not 60,000 as STAT reported — young women born in 1992, 1993 and 1994 from 33 Finnish communities. The researchers divided them into three groups based on their community’s vaccination strategy: gender-neutral HPV vaccination, girls-only vaccination and no vaccination.

Four years after the groups were first offered vaccination (and eight years after for a smaller subset of around 3,600 subjects), the researchers tested for 16 types of genital HPV viruses considered oncogenic (linked to tumor formation) because they are associated with cervical or other cancers. The presence of oncogenic HPV is not the only risk factor for cervical cancer.

There are over 200 strains of the HPV virus, a subset of which are deemed high-risk. Depending on the vaccine, HPV vaccines target only two (Cervavix targets strains 16 and 18), four (Gardasil 4  targets strains 6, 11, 16 and 18) or nine (Gardasil 9, which adds strains 31, 33, 45, 52, 58) of those high-risk strains.

The researchers investigated how different community-level HPV vaccination strategies might change the prevalence of different HPV strains.

They found that in both vaccination groups, four and eight years following vaccination, there was a significant depletion of the high-risk HPV types targeted by the vaccine relative to the non-vaccinated group. The depletion was stronger in the gender-neutral group — when boys had also been vaccinated.

But they also found a higher prevalence of other, lower-risk oncogenic HPV strains than previously existed, particularly in the gender-neutral group. As the vaccine suppressed the targeted strains, the authors explained, other strains moved into the “niche” they formerly occupied.

That means that rather than reducing the incidence of the HPV virus altogether, vaccination changed the distribution of HPV strains, they wrote. Those oncogenic strains not targeted by the vaccine that grew in prevalence are also linked to cancer but at lower rates.

Other studies also have shown that HPV vaccination programs have caused the replacement of the previously most common types of HPVs with rarer types of HPV that also cause cancer.

The authors noted that “the imminent risk of viral evolutionary responses” would diminish the impact of HPV vaccination.

[…]

The authors concluded that to control oncogenic HPVs and related cancers, more research on how long-term vaccine use could change the disease evolution is imperative. They said this may have implications for future screening protocols, but did not elaborate.

Rosenberg said the implications are that more rigorous screening protocols may be necessary.

[…]

Why would ‘type replacement’ matter? 

The study authors hypothesized that this strain-type replacement occurs because vaccine-induced immunity reduces the number of people susceptible to the targeted strains and leads to a biased immune response favoring infection by other strains.

Type replacement could also lead to the selection for immune escape variants — new variants that result from the selective pressure on the virus from imperfect vaccination.

Vaccine-favored variants have developed after vaccination for a number of diseases, including hepatitis B, pertussis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Marek’s disease, malaria and diphtheria.

In some cases, like Marek’s disease and malaria, research shows vaccination led to an increased prevalence of variants with increased virulence. In others, like pertussis, this evolution was linked to the paradoxical reemergence of the disease in highly vaccinated populations.

In other cases, such as Haemophilus influenzae type b, evidence suggested that vaccination caused a milder strain to become more virulent.

[…]

“Neither of these biological possibilities are discussed in either the STAT or Cell Microbe articles in general or in relation to the questions regarding the ‘ecology’ of HPV,” Couey added.

In the study, the authors emphasized that particularly among the gender-neutral vaccine groups, the targeted strains were suppressed. However, between four and eight years post-vaccination, the levels of HPV diversity were similar to those of the non-vaccinated control group.

The researchers found that after vaccination, non-targeted cancer-linked HPV types increased in prevalence and diversity. This suggests that even with vaccination, different cancer-linked HPV types are still evolving in complex ways.

This raises questions about the long-term effects of the HPV vaccination on the antigenic variation and possible virulence shifts of the remaining oncogenic HPVs, the authors noted.

Cervical cancer ‘eradication’ by vaccinating boys?

In the authors’ press release on the study — also reported in Medical Xpress — they claimed definitively, “The most effective way to prevent cervical cancer is to give HPV vaccines to both boys and girls.”

This claim was based on their finding that in the communities where boys and girls were vaccinated, they saw a decline in four types of oncogenic HPV (16, 18, 31 and 45) and in the communities where only girls were vaccinated, they saw a decline in only three types of oncogenic HPV (16, 18 and 31).

“This shows that you get stronger herd immunity if you vaccinate both boys and girls,” said lead author Ville N. Pimenoff, Ph.D. “According to our calculations, it would take 20 years of vaccinating girls to achieve the same effect that can be achieved in eight years with a relatively moderate vaccination coverage rate of gender-neutral vaccination.”

However, they concede this herd immunity would not eliminate the risk of HPV-linked cancer, given the type replacement they identified.

Couey said these claims about the efficacy of gender-neutral vaccination are based on a questionable methodology, using a “dubiously blurred” combination of data sets.

Couey told The Defender:

“Their ‘observations’ are made without any data from HPV prevalence in these populations before vaccination and using a general linear model, or GLM, to interpret their data set. There are no quantitative differences for the authors to draw from in their data without mathematically extending it to a synthetically generated data set using a mathematical fitting technique the authors termed a graphical independence network, or GIN, model.

“The distinction between conclusions drawn from real-world observations in experiments versus conclusions drawn from mathematical modeling inference is dubiously blurred in this article and the follow-up coverage of it.

[…]

Those Big Pharma corporations have been dedicated over the last several years to expanding HPV vaccination throughout the world to girls, but also more recently to boys and to young and middle-aged adults.

[…]

Merck’s Gardasil was first licensed in 2006 for use in girls and women ages 9-26 to prevent four high-risk strains of HPV.

The FDA in 2009 expanded the license for use in males ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts and in 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended it for routine use in boys.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-virus-cancer-evolution/

By  John-Michael Dumais

An investigation by The BMJ into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, found multiple deficiencies in the system, including the revelation that the government runs two systems — one for the public, and a private back-end system that contains all of the corrections and updates, including deaths that occurred after an initial injury.

Diagnosed with sudden onset pulmonary hypertension, the healthy and fit 49-year-old anesthesiologist from Maryland attempted to file a report through the government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

But like others interviewed in a recent investigation by The BMJ, Sullivan hit barrier after barrier when trying to submit and update his report.

Almost three years later, still grappling with debilitating symptoms, Sullivan’s experience highlights the systemic problems with the U.S. adverse events monitoring system run jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

From doctors unable to file reports to disappearing data, limits on transparency and lack of resources to follow up on concerning vaccine reactions, experts warn VAERS is failing to detect critical safety signals.

According to one of those experts — VAERS researcher Albert Benavides, whose experience includes HMO claims auditing, data analytics and revenue cycle management — VAERS’ failure isn’t accidental.

[…]

‘They even delete legitimate reports’

Like others interviewed by The BMJ, Sullivan experienced limited follow-up after submitting his VAERS report. He received only a temporary report number months after his initial submission.

A physician named “Helen” (pseudonym) told The BMJ that fewer than 20% of concerning reports get follow-up, including many deaths she reported.

In consultation with Benavides, an audit by React19 found that 1 in 3 COVID-19 vaccine adverse events reports in VAERS were either not posted publicly or were deleted. React19 is a nonprofit that collects stories of people injured by the mRNA vaccines.

According to The BMJ, of those queried by React19, “22% had never been given a permanent VAERS ID number and 12% had disappeared from the system entirely.”

Benavides, who publishes the VAERSAware dashboards documenting many of the problems with VAERS, said there is even deeper dysfunction in the VAERS system — from inventing symptoms to deleting reports.

“VAERS does not publish all legitimate reports received,” Benavides told The Defender. “They throttle publication of reports. They even delete legitimate reports.”

For a system dependent on voluntary engagement, these restrictive policies keep critical data hidden, according to Benavides.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contracted with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) to review the VAERS system. In 2010, HPHC filed its r report, which determined that 1 in 39 people experienced vaccine injuries and that only around 1% of vaccine-related injuries or deaths are ever reported to VAERS.

The CDC, which operates under HHS, scuttled the study, refused to take calls from the researchers and declined to upgrade the VAERS system when a new, much more effective system was developed.

‘Blind spots are self-created’

VAERS “collects reports of symptoms, diagnoses, hospital admissions, and deaths after vaccination for the purpose of capturing post-market safety signals,” according to The BMJ.

But the limited transparency of VAERS data presents barriers to proper analysis, according to The BMJ’s investigation and researchers like Benavides.

The public — including doctors and other report submitters — can access only incomplete initial reports, not updates with vital details.

This means outcomes like death are often excluded if the initial report was for an injury and a subsequent death report was filed.

[…]

Whelan, a rheumatologist and researcher at the University of California Los Angeles, in 2022 filed a report of a cardiac arrest in a 7-year-old male patient after COVID-19 vaccination.

[…]

Whelan is one the authors of a recent critique of the Cochrane Review that concluded the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were not dangerous.

The problem with VAERS is not limited to a lack of adequate follow-up but to the incomplete and often inaccurate information found there.

[…]

Agencies maintain two separate VAERS databases — public gets to see only one

“There’s two parts to VAERS, the front end and back end,” stated Narayan Nair, division director for the FDA’s Division of Pharmacovigilance at a December 2022 meeting with advocates, according to The BMJ. “Anything from medical records by law can’t be posted on the public-facing system,” he said.

The BMJ investigation discovered that the FDA and CDC maintain two separate VAERS databases, one available to the public that contains only initial reports, and a private back-end system containing all of the updates and corrections.

“Anything derived from medical records by law” cannot be posted on the public-facing system, Nair told the advocates, according to The BMJ.

In an apparent contradiction to this claim, The BMJ noted the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), which collects post-marketing information on drug reactions, posts its updates publicly.

[…]

CDC says it reviewed 20,000 reports of deaths — none were related to COVID shots

Withholding outcome data like deaths obscures critical safety signals, experts contend.

James Gill, a medical examiner, reported the death of a 15-year-old patient after vaccination, but the case was dismissed by the CDC despite autopsy evidence, according to the BMJ investigation.

Physician “Helen” told The BMJ that after filing reports on her medical patients, including six who had died, she received only a single request for medical records on the death and two for hospital-admitted patients.

The standard operating procedure for COVID-19 vaccine reports in VAERS, according to The BMJ, is for reports to be processed quickly and for “serious reports” to receive special review by CDC staff.

However, while some other countries have acknowledged the probable connection between the mRNA vaccines and death, the CDC, while claiming to have reviewed nearly 20,000 death reports, has yet to acknowledge a single death linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, The BMJ said.

Benavides provided The Defender examples of VAERS “deleting legitimate reports,” not just duplicates or false claims.

“VAERS even deleted dead Pfizer Trial patients,” he said, claiming that this report, for example, was not a “duplicate” and did not appear to be fake.

[…]

“There are over a thousand cardiac arrests where they are not marked as dead, and I question if they actually survived because there is no mention of ROSC [return of spontaneous circulation].”

[…]

Physicians report only FDA-recognized adverse events

[…]

Svetlana Blitshteyn, a neurologist and researcher at the University at Buffalo, New York, told The BMJ if physicians are not educated to look for a specific condition, they’re unlikely to test for it or know how to treat it.

Sullivan told The Defender he believes his experience of developing pulmonary hypertension after taking the mRNA vaccine is one such safety signal the CDC and FDA are overlooking — a condition he believes many athletes have unknowingly developed.

Sullivan co-authored a paper of his and one other similar case of post-vaccine pulmonary hypertension. According to the paper:

“Pulmonary hypertension is a serious disease characterized by damage to lung vasculature and restricted blood flow through narrowed arteries from the right to left heart. The onset of symptoms is typically insidious, progressive and incurable, leading to right heart failure and premature death.”

“Athletes are canaries in the coal mine,” Sullivan told The Defender, speaking of the unusual numbers of athlete deaths since the rollout of the vaccine. Sullivan thinks that those with superior physical conditioning, like him, stand a better chance of survival with early detection.

However, he said, “Athletes will get echocardiography, and it will be essentially normal. The only way to tell for sure is to do a right-heart catheterization” that can identify the anomaly.

Sullivan believes the lives of many athletes could still be saved if the reporting system recognized and investigated the signal — and said he would be happy to join a project dedicated to this goal.

He also told The Defender he believes many of the sudden deaths reported in the 25- to 44-year-old age group are a result of this hidden condition.

[…]

‘The buck stops with the CDC for reforms’

Critics point to choices by the CDC as compounding VAERS’ passive design and understaffing issues.

Despite over 1.7 million reports since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, staffing was not boosted accordingly, according to statements the CDC made to The BMJ.

A Freedom of Information Act request by The BMJ revealed Pfizer has nearly 1,000 more full-time employees working on vaccine surveillance than the CDC. Records showed in 2021, Pfizer on-boarded 600 additional full-time employees to handle the volume of adverse reports and planned to hire 200 more.

Physician “Helen” in The BMJ article called for an end to the “negative feedback loop” whereby the FDA fails to list adverse reactions because passive surveillance systems like the FDA’s don’t display them, while at the same time, because of that lack of disclosure, “physicians are blinded to the adverse reactions in their patients, and thus aren’t reporting them.”

“The buck stops with the CDC for reforms needed to open up data,” Benavides told The Defender, adding several suggestions that could immediately improve VAERS:

“Revert back to pre-January 2011 when VAERS did append initial reports with follow-up data, including death. Take off the arbitrary 30-minute time limit to file a report before getting kicked off. Make the process easier to submit follow-up data.”

When asked why the incompetence of VAERS had been allowed to continue for so long, Sullivan told The Defender, “Because of the lack of product liability” for the vaccines “and the surge to defend economic interests.”

Sullivan said he’d like to see the following changes to the system:

• Pharmaceutical advertising banned.
• Pharmaceutical company revenues devoted to advertising instead be spent on R&D.
• The tax money collected on pharma profits be directly sent to victim injury funds.

Yale cardiologist takes on study of COVID vaccine injuries

Benavides said he spoke with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Monday and is also in discussion with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to address the concerns with VAERS, including the under-publishing of reports.

“That’s a long overdue prospect and it would be incredible to actually get some analysis by that committee,” he said.

Another bright spot comes from news reported in The BMJ’s investigation that Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and researcher at Yale University, has been recruiting members of React19 to study their vaccine injuries.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-fda-vaers-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting/