Gardasil. Faith and propaganda versus hard evidence

Nicole Delépine, Gérard Delépine

• Éditeur: Fauves editions
• Année: 2019
• ISBN:
  9791030217360
• Sujet: Literature
• Sous-sujet: Literary Criticism

Since smear cancer screening, cervical cancer has become a rare cause of death among women of industrialized countries (0.7% of cancer deaths in US). This cancer is statistically linked to numerous factors including the frequent sexual activity, smoking and sexually transmitted infections.The authors evaluate the HPV vaccination results on the incidence of invasive cervical cancer in different countries, comparing their official national registers data.In all studied countries, the evolution is similar: during the smear screening era (1989-2007), the incidence of cervical cancer declined by 50 %. Since 2007 and the Gardasil marketing authorization, a trend reversal has been observed in all countries with high immunization coverage (Australia, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden). The registers analysis reveals a paradoxical increase in the cancer incidence appearing 3 to 5 years following the vaccination campaign. This increase affects almost exclusively the most vaccinated age groups. Gardasil trials have proved its effectiveness against HPV infection, genital warts and benign dysplasia, but not against invasive cancer. The Gardasil tolerance is the subject of debate. Serious neurological complications and even deaths are regularly reported. Today, the Gardasil benefit/risk balance is unfavourable. Inform elected officials to prevent an obligation threatening girls and boys. This unexpected paradoxical result requires additional studies to determine the causes of such a health dis

1.
GARDASIL AGAINST CANCER: THE ANTI-CANCER VACCINES, A LONG-STANDING HISTORY OF HOPES AND DISILLUSIONS

Contemplating one’s victories without considering the losses leads to disaster: another victory like that and

I come home alone to Epirus”.

Pyrrhus’s Experience4

Cancer is a multifactorial disease5 6which often occurs as soon as the immunity of the individual decreases. Multiple factors contribute to the great difficulty in treating cancer, by a single treatment; hence the regular failure of treatments that rely only on one approach (innovative therapies for example).

Approaching the search for healing, via the immune system, an old idea too long disparaged is legitimate. As always after the negation phase, we rediscover it, even announcing miracles and forget to associate other methods, falling into a new Manichean error!

As part of the fight against immune disorders, vaccines have appeared promising.

In our lifetime, thousands of cells have become “anarchists, tried one day or another to escape the common rule and to multiply without respecting the harmony of the organism. But our immune police keeps watch and, as soon as it recognizes them, attacks these cells. To this fight, the body almost always wins. Abnormal cells are eradicated even without any detectable clinical sign.

More rarely, the fight ends with a “truce”: abnormal cells have multiplied to the point of forming a small tumour, but they stop evolving, creating a sleeping cancer. It will not give any sign of life, but a systematic screening7 or an autopsy performed after an accident on public roads may reveal it. This latent “sleeping cancer” leads to an overdiagnosis, when discovered by systematic “screenings”. Overdiagnosis is very frequent in the breast, prostate or colon and is, too often, followed by “overtreatment”. Dilemma8 and limits of screenings in oncology. Exceptionally, the abnormal cells win the fight, and proliferate indefinitely, forming a progressive malignant tumour that threatens life.

IMMUNOTHERAPY CURATOR OF CANCER

Curative immunotherapy consists of strengthening the natural defences against a progressive tumour. Cancer immunotherapy seeks to manipulate the immune system of a patient in order to specifically destroy his tumour cells. His interest felt long ago in particular by Professor G. Mathé910 , was illustrated by the modest but indisputable successes of interferon on osteosarcoma11, metastatic kidney cancer and BCG therapy in bladder cancers12.

This curative immunotherapy is back on the scene with the recent appearance of many immunomodulatory treatments that get sometimes impressive responses, but often very transient13. The current lack of hind-sight does not make it possible to specify their exact place among the other treatments14.

PREVENTIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY

It aims to prevent the appearance of cancers in healthy individuals. Very popular at the time of repetitive advertising on prevention, magic word, which would be the solution to all successive French Health Plans (including the last of September 2018 Buzyn-Macron). This concept bludgeoning force for decades, has in fact never demonstrated its efficacy (except for some toxics), and intuition is not in itself synonymous with reason, although it may sometimes be added value. Who has the intuition of quantum physics?

But the prevention policy with medications or vaccines has the enormous advantage for the market of treating millions of people, when the treatment of evolutive diseases addresses only thousands. My intuition tells me that it’s a very sound argument!

General preventive immunotherapy

Aims to strengthen the body’s overall immune defences, to prevent abnormal cells from proliferating, to counteract the infectious vectors (for example the many complements food or drugs proposed in early winter to prevent infectious episodes).

Preventive immunotherapy of cancers, the goals of Gardasil15

“The viral aetiology of certain forms of cancer has been recognized in animals since the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, V Ellerman and O Bang in 1908 and P Rous in 1911 successively demonstrated the role of avian leukaemia virus (ALV) and Rous sarcoma virus (SV) in the development of tumour in chicken and the transmissible character of these agents. In 1936, J Bittner demonstrated the role of a virus (MMTV) in the formation of mammary tumours in mice and its transmission by breast milk to offspring. Ludwig Gross (1951) and Charlotte Friend (1957) described viruses responsible for murine leukaemia of slow and rapid evolution respectively. In humans: in 1964, M Epstein, B Achong and Y Barr isolated a virus called Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) from Burkitt lymphoma cultures, and in 1966 W Henle evoked the link between this virus (EBV) and this tumour. A link will then be established between this virus and nasopharyngeal cancer.”

Many infectious diseases are now statistically recognized as associated with certain types of cancer16. The cause-to-effect relationship (and not just a statistical correlation) is always hard to prove irrefutably. Gastric cancers are now much rarer17, since antibiotic therapy for Helicobacter Pylori is used in treatment of gastric ulcer. But, as the disappearance of the chronic inflammation has its share of responsibility in the hatching of the cancer, it is difficult to affirm the cause of DIRECT germ-cancer effect.

Very specific immunotherapy may be aimed at preventing an infectious disease that may promote cancer or at least be associated with it.

Only two viral infections have, to date, undergone an anti-cancer prevention attempt: viral hepatitis B with the generalization of hepatitis B vaccine and human papilloma viruses (HPV) with Gardasil and Cervarix.

THE TRAGIC PRECEDENT OF THE HEPATITIS B VACCINE, A HIDDEN INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC

The failure of the hepatitis B vaccination, in most industrialized countries to reduce liver cancer rates, should have sounded the alarm to avoid generalizing Gardasil.

Before hoping to reduce the frequency of cervical cancer in vaccinating against the supposedly responsible virus, the researchers should look at the disappointing precedent of vaccination against hepatitis B, which was supposed to reduce the rate of liver cancer and failed.

ANTI-HEPATITIS B VACCINE AND CANCER PREVENTION: A BEAUTIFUL HOPE COLLAPSES, A LIE THAT LASTS

WHO,18 in its European code against cancer of 4/2/2016, claims that “vaccination against the hepatitis B virus just after birth helps reduce your child ’risk of developing liver cancer.”? But 80% of WHO’s funding comes from the private sector and particularly from vaccine firms. That raises major doubts about its objectivity, especially after reviewing the facts.

Gavi alliance, partly financed by Bill Gates19, proclaims “vaccines make a giant leap forward in preventing cancers caused by infectious agents such as the human hepatitis B virus and human papillomavirus. The French National Institute f...