Did The FDA Just Fast-Track Approve Fertility Harming HPV Vaccine For Adults?
Posted on:
Thursday, June 14th 2018 at 4:15 am
Written By:
Jefferey Jaxen
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2018
Visit our Re-post guidelines
Visit our Re-post guidelines
As Merck's HPV vaccine receives FDA approval for use in women and men ages 27 to 45, a new study adds to the growing concern that the vaccine has significant safety issues that are being ignored and/or actively suppressed.
Merck has recently announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted their vaccine application seeking approval for an expanded age indication for GARDASIL 9 for use in women and men ages 27 to 45. The FDA has granted Priority Review to Merck’s application and has set a target action date of October 6, 2018. A Priority Review designation means the FDA is fast-tracking the process by directing extra attention and resources to the application as opposed to a Standard Review process.
Two days prior to Merck’s FDA announcement, a new article was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health appeared to deal another blow to the HPV vaccine’s already questionable safety profile. Titled, "A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection," the article analyzed data on the probability of pregnancy for females who received an HPV vaccine compared with females who did not receive the shot. The article goes on to state a sobering point discovered by the author’s logistic regression data analysis:
“If 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million. Further study into the influence of HPV vaccine on fertility is thus warranted.”
The study analyzed information gathered in a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women residing in the United States between 2007 and 2014 as well as referening 32 peer-reviewed research papers from well-respected journals. The study was also carried out absent pharmaceutical company monetary and ideological influence.
Shortly after GARDASIL was licensed, several post -marketing reports of recipients experiencingprimary ovarian failure emerged. In fact, according to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) there have been nearly 58,000 severe health issues from the HPV vaccine including hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and deaths. Also included in the VAERS HPV reporting are categories listed as “disabled” and “serious” which accounted for nearly 11,000 cases.
From the perspective of a growing body of scientific literature, the causes of the HPV vaccine’s severe adverse reactions are becoming less and less of a mystery. The various HPV vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants that have been assumed to be safe from the findings of limited, mathematically-based scientific research focusing on ingested, not injected, aluminum. To compound issues, the pre-licensure safety studies by vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Merck spiked their placebos with aluminum adjuvants and cut observation periods to conceal a wide range of risks associated with HPV vaccines.
New research over the past decade has literally changed a paradigm to spotlight just howdangerous injecting aluminum actually is. The detailed findings of autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) associated with the HPV and other vaccines is beginning to explain some of the HPV vaccine’s severe adverse events including POF.
Given the problematic history of Merck’s GARDASIL vaccines, why is the FDA considering the expansion of a potentially failed product into larger swaths of the population? Will the FDA weigh almost a decade of new, highly reputable science that puts both GARDASIL and GARDASIL 9’s safety in question?
Learn more about the unintended, adverse effects of HPV vaccine on our database dedicated to the topic:
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
No comments:
Post a Comment