Cynthia A. Janak
August 7, 2009
The pandemic of harm
By Cynthia A. Janak

One of the things that has interested me from the beginning is the sexual transmission of the Human Papillomavirus. It has been referenced time and time again that HPV is sexually transmitted. The reason the vaccine was approved for use by 9 year-old girls is because the majority of these children would not have had any sexual encounters at this age.

This is all well and good in theory but according to a study in Finland the transmission of HPV via sexual contact is not the only means. In this study 76 families were studied for two years with the main focus being the transmission of HPV from parents to infants. http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/43/1/376 Transmission of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) between Parents and Infant: a Prospective Study of HPV in Families in Finland, Marjut A. M. Rintala,1* Seija E Gre'nman,1 Mirja H. Puranen,2,3 Erika Isolauri,4 Ulla Ekblad,1 Pentti O. Kero,4 and Stina M. Syrjanen2,3, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology1 and Department of Pediatrics,4 Turku University Central Hospital,Institute of Dentistry,2 and MediCity Research Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Universityof Turku,3 Turku, Finland,Received 1 December 2003/Returned for modification 28 January 2004/Accepted 20 September 2004, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, Jan. 2005, p. 376381

What I found interesting in this study is that on page three they discuss HPV detection in the families. It states that only 2.6% of the families were totally HPV DNA negative. Here is the paragraph with all the details.

HPV dynamics in the families are shown in Table 2. Only 2.6% of the families were totally HPV DNA negative. In 22 families (29%), HPV DNA was detected in all family members. HPV DNA was more frequent in mother-infant than in father-infant pairs (26 versus 11%). However, in six (8%) families, only the infant was HPV positive, as determined by any sample positive for HPV.


What concerned me about these findings is the fact that 7.9% of the families the infant was the only one that had HPV DNA present. How did these infants acquire HPV? Could it be from lateral transmission such as by someone unknowingly infected kissing the baby on the mouth or an infected person changing the baby's diaper? We all know that HPV is present in both males and females and is not just a sexually transmitted disease as previously thought. We now know that it can be acquired via contact.

Let us go on.

Taking into consideration that only 2.6% of the families were totally HPV DNA negative, this leaves 97.4% were HPV DNA positive.

What this tells me in regards to the efficacy of the HPV vaccines is that it is known that a female that has been previously exposed to the HPV has a 44.6% increased chance of cervical cancer later in life if they are inoculated with the HPV vaccines presently being administered to young woman and girls.

To put this all into perspective I am going to use the number of 1 million girls receiving the inoculation to HPV. Here are my findings.

Out of 1,000,000 females the likelihood of exposure to HPV at some time in their early lives is 97.4%. That gives us 974,000 females who may have been exposed to HPV previous to inoculation. If 44.6% of those females are at a greater risk of later life cervical cancer after inoculation then we will have 434,404 young women who by the time they reach middle age and have families could acquire cervical cancer via a persistent infection with HPV types in the vaccines.

This makes perfect sense when you look at the reports of genital warts popping up in young girls who are not sexually active after inoculation. To me this means that HPV is present in the body in some way because of prior exposure.

In my opinion, what we have done by allowing this vaccination program to continue is that we have just put 97.4% of our youth at risk for cervical cancer.

I want to bring you to a study that I found that dates back to November of 2002. It was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 347, Number 21. A CONTROLLED TRIAL OF A HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 16 VACCINE, Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D, Kevin A. Ault, M.D., Cosette M. Wheeler, Ph.D., Darron R. Brown, M.D., Eliav Barr, M. D., Frances B. Alvarez. R. N., Lisa M. Chiacchierini, Ph.D., and Kathrin U. Janse, Ph.D., for the Proof of Principle Study Investigators. http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/347/21/1645.pdf?ck=nck

From the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle (L.A.K.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City (K.A.A.); the Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (C.M.W.); the Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.R.B.); Biologics Clinical Research (E.B., F.B.A.) and the Department of Biostatistics (L.M.C.), Merck Research Laboratories, Blue Bell, Pa.; and the Department of Virus and Cell Biology, Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, Pa. (K.U.J.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Koutsky at the HPV Research Group, 1914 N. 34th St., Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98103, or at kouts@u.washington.edu.

On the first page of this study it states that, "HUMAN papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a common sexually transmitted disease."1-4 Taking into consideration the study I mentioned at the beginning of this article we now know that this is not a true statement. Transmission of the HPV can happen at childbirth or by lateral transmission (contact) at any time in life.

This study was conducted from October 1998 through November 1999. 2392 young women between the ages of 16 to 23 years of age were studied.

The vaccine in the study was the HPV-16 L1 virus-like-particle vaccine provided by Merck Research Laboratories. Page two "The HPV-16 L1 polypeptide is expressed in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Virus-like particles are isolated with the use of standard techniques to achieve a purity of more than 97 percent and adsorbed onto amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant without preservative. The HPV-16 vaccine used in this study contained 40 g of HPV-16 L1 virus-like particles formulated on 225 g of aluminum adjuvant in a total carrier volume of 0.5 ml. The placebo contained 225 g of aluminum adjuvant in a total carrier volume of 0.5 ml. Vaccine and placebo were visually indistinguishable."

The authors of this paper let the reader know that aluminum was not only in the vaccine group, but in the control group. This is interesting to me because aluminum is a neurotoxin and can cause adverse events. The reporting of these adverse events was handled in two ways. The women were required to keep a diary of any adverse events for 14 days after each injection and they were also reported to the investigators. This is what they say about that: "All such events were called adverse regardless of whether the investigators (who were unaware of the women's treatment assignments) judged them to be related to the vaccine. All adverse events judged by the investigators to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the vaccine were assumed to be vaccine related."

Let us go to page 5 of this study under the title of "Tolerability of Vaccine."

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (Table 4). The most frequent adverse experience was pain at the injection site. The percentages of women with temperatures of at least 37.7C (100F) were similar in the two groups.

Let us consider the phrase "were similar in the two groups." To the average person reading this it could mean that the vaccine was safe for the most part but to the individual that looks at the table that this is referencing would get a different impression. Here is table 4.


As you can see here the women that reported at least one adverse event is 93.1% and the investigator determined that 89.5% were vaccine related. So back in 2002 it was known that the HPV vaccine, in my opinion, would cause harm in some degree in 93.1% of the participants. This is a huge number.

I also want to bring your attention back to the aluminum adjuvant I mentioned earlier.

As you can see in the control group the adverse events are just slightly lower than the vaccine group. To me this proves that the ingredients used in the vaccine along with the aluminum adjuvant are the real source of the adverse events.

As I have seen with other studies that I have read in regards to other vaccines it is the ingredients used in the vaccines that are causing the harm. I call this the pandemic of harm that is occurring around the world in regards to our present means of inoculation.

It is my opinion, that little regard is being taken to the results of studies performed. If the results were a real consideration we would not have the vaccines that we have today causing the pandemic of harm to the population of the world.

It is time that the world as a whole society needs to stand strong and say no to inoculation in its present form. The flu vaccines that may be required around the world because of the WHO declared pandemic have the same or similar ingredients as the HPV vaccines. It is my belief that the pandemic flu vaccines will not quell the WHO declared pandemic but they will cause a new pandemic, the pandemic of harm.

Just look at the adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine, 93.1%, and work the numbers as to how many people in the world will have an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. The number could be in the billions.

This is the reality of the situation with the vaccines that we have today. The other reality is that when the flu inoculations are administered we will not even have the luxury of having any long-term safety studies available to read.

All across the world the pandemic flu is being reported as mild.

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=59069&catid=188

Doctor: H1N1 Virus May Have Peaked, Posted By: <NOSPAM>news10.net?subject=viewer%20question%20about%20an%20article&body=Link:http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=59069&catid=188>Sharon Ito 3 months ago

SACRAMENTO, CA It appears the worst may be behind us from the H1N1 flu outbreak in the country, said Friday's Live_Online guest, Dr. Marc Schenker, a professor of public health at UC Davis School of Medicine.

Schenker told viewers it appears the virus has reached a plateau in the U.S. and "we're past the peak of the epidemic." But he said the virus may still mutate into something more dangerous in other parts of the world.

The doctor also said it's correct to say the H1N1 flu reached the pandemic stage because the virus spread globally, however, it wasn't a severe pandemic that wiped out huge populations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSL4634663


WHO maintains 2 bln estimate for likely H1N1 cases, Tue Aug 4, 2009 12:32pm EDT

GENEVA, Aug 4 (Reuters) The World Health Organisation stuck on Tuesday to its statement that about two billion people could catch H1N1 influenza by the time the flu pandemic ends.

But the estimate comes with a big health warning: no one knows how many people so far have caught the new strain, known as swine flu, and the final number will never be known as many cases are so mild they may go unnoticed.

http://www.coastalcourier.com/news/article/15548/

Health officials limiting flu reporting By Alena Parker, Staff writer, aparker@coastalcourier.com , Updated: July 31, 2009 9:39 a.m.

"Most of the cases ... are mild and most of them are recovering, but we know there has been a handful of folks who have become more ill," Weems said.

Everyone who becomes infected with H1N1 isn't going to end up in the hospital.

"The majority of people will do well and recover," Weems said. "In a healthy individual, generally, it's been mild, thus far. We expect we will see more cases we hope we continue to see cases that are mild."

She encourages everyone to continue to practice good hygiene, including hand washing and using alcohol-based sanitizing gels.

"And if you're sick,' Weems said, "stay home."


Just to add a little more perspective to these issues.

http://www.euro.who.int/influenza/AH1N1/20090703_1

Nearly 10 000 confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in the European Region

WHO/Europe outbreak update, 2 July 2009, 09:00 GMT

36 of the 53 Member States in the WHO European Region had reported a total of 9967 confirmed cases, including four fatal ones, of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus


This means that out of 9967 cases only 0.04% are fatal. Compare 93.1% adverse events to 0.04% and what do you think would be worse?

As you can see by the reports I have quoted that the pandemic flu virus is mild and in some reports it is so mild that it goes unnoticed. The other thing that we know from past experience with viruses is that when we get one naturally like the people who have already had the pandemic flu virus, they now have a natural immunity to this virus. Because of this there is no need for them to get any type of vaccination this fall. So my question is why the rush to produce vaccines for a mild virus that according to Dr. Marc Schenker is "past the peak of the epidemic."

This virus was a more easily transmitted than the H5N1 that occurred in Asia but it is not even a quarter as deadly. So why vaccinate? We did not have this furor over the H5N1. Why over just a mild flu? I don't get it.

I feel like this is similar to the story of the boy who cried wolf and the wolf was never there.

Another thing I am going to bring to your attention is that with the Gardasil vaccine we have over 15,000 adverse events reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) with over 47 deaths and this does not even cause the FDA or the CDC to raise an eyebrow and suspend this vaccine. But let a child in Texas die and two children in California get sick from the flu in April and now you have a pandemic and a national emergency and everyone will need to be vaccinated in the fall.

You have as of July 9967confirmed cases in Europe and 4 deaths and everyone is frantic about the pandemic but what about the pandemic of harm the HPV vaccines are causing? You have the HPV vaccines causing harm to young women around the world and that is okay. No one is going to do anything.

Don't those young women and girls matter?

To further prove this pandemic of harm I am going to reference "The British Jounal of Psychiatry (2009) 194, 500509. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.059345, study. "Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study ",Simon Baron-Cohen,* Fiona J. Scott,* Carrie Allison,* Joanna Williams, Patrick Bolton, Fiona E. Matthews and Carol Brayne

http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2009_BC_etal_BritishJournalPsychiatry_Prevalence.pdf

On page 7 of this document you will see how they broke the numbers down to come to their consensus of 1 in every 64 children have some form of Autism.

This is found under the title Discussion.

This paper reports prevalence estimates of autism-spectrum conditions in children aged 59 in a total population using various methods of ascertainment, and provides a multiplier that may be applied to other prevalence estimates generated from studies that include known cases of autism-spectrum conditions.

Further, prevalence estimates reported from other countries fall within the confidence intervals of our estimates reported in this paper.17,34,35


To finish, on page 8, title Implications, the authors made this statement.

Although our final estimates may be built upon a selection of possible assumptions about the non-responding population, our most conservative estimate (assuming no cases of autism spectrum conditions in the non-responders) is still nearly 12 times higher than the estimate in 1978.9

What has changed in the lives of our children? They are receiving a better education. They have access to better nutrition, hygiene and medical practices. Why the rise in Autism?

That is very simply explained. My opinion is this. What we have today in this society is the school of thought of better living through chemistry. When you go to the doctor with a symptom you get a pill for that symptom. When you come back to the same doctor, with a new symptom which could be a side effect of the first pill, you get another pill and the vicious cycle of better living through chemistry begins.

You start putting these chemicals into your finally balanced body and you now have imbalance. That imbalance causes the body to not function properly; therefore you have symptoms of the displeasure of the body to the foreign substances being administered.

Let us look at it this way. It is like putting the wrong oil or anti-freeze in your car. The car now shows symptoms of needing maintenance which could be costly.

Since 1978 one thing has happened and that is the increase in childhood vaccinations. The other thing that has happened is the dramatic increase in medications for all these symptoms the people of the world have today.

In the United States when you watch television you see usually at least two commercials for different pills that will make your life a better place through chemistry. What they do not want you to notice is all the side-effects these medications can cause. These are usually spoken quickly and the statement that follows is "please consult your doctor..."

What has been happening since 1978 is the pandemic of harm. We as a society have allowed profit to be the motivating factor in our health, "better living through chemistry." Instead of diagnosing the underlying problem to the symptom we are given a pill. Instead of promoting better nutritional habits we have fast food (I call this mystery meat). We do not heavily promote vitamin supplementation to boost the immune system. We have chips and dip and all other types of junk food.

What is wrong with this picture? Don't we care anymore about how we take care of ourselves? Don't we care about the health and wellbeing of our future generation?

People need to take positive actions to stop the pandemic of harm. This pandemic is more deadly than the 1918 flu pandemic. I say this because the flu pandemic ended. This pandemic is ongoing year after year. We as a society need to be held accountable for the health and wellbeing of future generations. Let us clean up our environment, promote better habits and promote prosperity by using the services of local small business owners.

Let us decide to go back to a time when we looked out for each other and the world in which we live in. I try to do this every day by eating a balanced diet, vitamins and promote small businesses in my area. It is easy to do. You just have to make the choice to stop the "pandemic of harm."

9. Rutter M. Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. J Autism Child Schizophr 1978; 8: 13961.

17. Bertrand J, Mars A, Boyle C, Bove F, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Decoufle P. Prevalence of autism in a United States population: the Brick Township, New Jersey, investigation. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 115561.

34. Gillberg C, Cederlund M, Lamberg K, Zeijlon L. Brief report: 'the autism epidemic.' The registered prevalence of autism in a Swedish urban area. J Autism Dev Disord 2006; 36: 42935.

35. Kadesjo B, Gillberg C, Hagberg B. Brief report: autism and Asperger syndrome in seven-year-old children: a total population study. J Autism Dev Disord 1999; 29: 32731.

© Cynthia A. Janak

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Cynthia A. Janak

Cynthia Janak is a freelance journalist, mother of three, foster mother of one, grandmother of five, business owner, Chamber of Commerce member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Cynthia A. Janak: Click here

More by this author