Conventional Medicine

The Coming Push to Give HPV Vaccines to Infants

If you can push the most dangerous vaccines in use today on teen and pre-teen girls, and later on boys of the same age, without any proof that they work, then why not give them to newborn infants—plus another ‘booster’ later on? That appears to be planned for Gardasil and Cervarix, along with a slick new marketing program, thanks to the vaccine-industrial complex.

by Heidi Stevenson

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database shows clearly that the vaccines with the most reported adverse effects are Gardasil and Cervarix, the two human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines. It would obviously be madness to lower the age at which they’ve given—but that appears to be exactly what’s being planned.

As Gaia Health has documented, these vaccines have not yet been shown to be effective in preventing cancer, and may even cause the disease. In fact, the document released by the FDA to justify Gardasil stated that women who are infected with HPV at the time of vaccination are 44.6% more likely to develop cervical dysplasias.^[1] This is not a minor issue, yet it is routinely ignored in the rush to vaccinate.

So why should we be surprised to find that the search for excuses to lower the age of vaccination is in full force?

The Justification

A review published in the journal Vaccine was produced to justify injecting the HPV vaccines into tiny babies.^[2] The authors wrote:

On a global scale, vaccination of newborns and infants is well established and has developed a successful working infrastructure. The hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination programs offer a model for HPV introduction in which newborn and infant immunization achieves a rapid reduction in the prevalence of the HBV carrier rates in immunized cohorts of children, and of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer decades later. [Emphasis mine.]

They consider giving babies the hepatitis B vaccine on the day of birth to be a model for reducing the age of HPV vaccination. Rather than vaccinating girls shortly before or near puberty, they’re suggesting that they be vaccinated as infants.

Nowhere in the document do they even consider the potential of adverse effects! Gardasil has recently been associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS),^[3] the disease that Stephen Hawking has. Japan has withdrawn its recommendation for HPV vaccines because of severe adverse effects.^[4]

The number of Cervarix adverse effects reported in the UK is shown in this graph from a study published in Current Pharmaceutical Design.^[5] The reported harm produced by this vaccine dwarfs that of any other vaccine.

Yet, the authors of “Reframing Cervical Cancer Prevention: Expanding the Field Towards Prevention of Human Papillomavirus Infections and Related Diseases”^[2] want to push the age for jabbing children downward to infancy. By the way, they also think that there would be no problem with giving a booster dose at the age girls are now vaccinated, as if the vaccine produces no harm!

There is no consideration given to adverse effects. There is no consideration given to the increased burden on babies with not only another vaccine, but the one that’s known to produce some of the worst and most common adverse effects of any vaccine.

Conflicts of Interest

It was financed by major governmental agencies, including the European Commission, the Instituto de Salud CarlosII of the Spanish government, and the Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca–Generalitat de Catalunya of the Catalonian government. The authors and their employers are:

F. Xavier Bosch: Cancer Epidemiology Research Program (CERP), Institut Català d’Oncologia–Catalan Institute of Oncology, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain
Vivien Tsu: Director of PATH’s HPV vaccine projects, Seattle, WA, USA—a partner of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Alex Vorsters and Pierre Van Damme: Centre fo the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Mark A. Kane: Consultant on Immunization Policy, Mercer Island, WA, USA

The authors’ employers are obviously are deeply tied to the vaccine industry. However, their personal ties to the vaccine-industrial complex is stunning:

Bosch has conducted HPV vaccine trials and epidemiological studies for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur MSD. He does screening and HPV testing trials supported by Qiagen, and takes travel grants and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Roche, and Qiagen.
Tsu did not declare any conflicts of interest. However, she was in charge of a Gates Foundation-funded HPV vaccine trial in India that came under attack for ethics violations by the Indian government. Subjects were selected from vulnerable uneducated tribal populations, consent was not properly obtained, and adverse events were not properly recorded. Tsu excused the ethical lapses because they were “the sorts of issues that the study was intended to tease out”!^[6] Aside from that, one must wonder how she can possibly suggest that she has no conflict of interest when her entire salary is dependent on promoting the vaccine dealt with by this review.
Van Damme is chief and principal investigator for vaccine trials conducted on behalf of the University of Antwerp, which gets grants from vaccine manufacturers. He also takes speakers’ fees for vaccine presentations and is secretary of the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board.
Vorsters is a member of the executive secretariat of the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board, which is supported by grants from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck.
Kane is a member of the Merck Advisory Board for the HPV vaccine and receives consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from Merck.

Why should we trust a study steeped in money from the Big Pharma corporations that would benefit by moving the age for HPV vaccination to infancy, and adding a booster jab at the age it’s now given? The complete lack of consideration for the harm produced by HPV vaccines is shocking, even in a group as deeply enthralled to the corporations they’re promoting. You would think that they’d at least put on a show of concern, but there isn’t a hint of it.

Selling Infant Vaccinations

The article subtly reveals that the HPV vaccine was not originally intended to be used solely for cervical cancer in women, that it has always been intended for a variety of cancers. So, apparently, girls were being used as guinea pigs, both to figure out how to sell the vaccine and to ascertain adverse effects … or, more likely, as this review seems to imply, to see how far they could push a vaccine with horrific and common adverse effects. Certainly, all the girls who’ve been given HPV vaccines have been treated in a most cavalier manner, since Gardasil was tested on rat testes, but not on ovaries!

Now that it’s obvious that the HPV vaccine is exceptionally dangerous, the effort seems to be on how to hide the risks. If there’d been any concern, then why didn’t these authors bother to include adverse effects in their calculations?

The authors’ concern had nothing to do with the lives lost and devastated. Instead, it was for the poor sales job done with HPV vaccines. They think that the process of pushing them on people would have gone much more smoothly if, instead of referring to them as “cancer preventing”, they had said that the vaccines prevent “HPV-related disease”.

So, you can expect to see a subtle change in how officials refer to HPV vaccines. Instead of discussing cancer, in particular cervical cancer, you’ll likely start hearing references to HPV-related diseases—with an emphasis on the plural. They’re going to sell vaccination of infants as a multi-cancer preventive. Parents who refuse to allow the HPV vaccine, for girls or boys, will be accused of dooming their children to a huge array of cancers. How’s that for a marketing technique?