What a pity that girls have been offered the HPV vaccine since 2009, and the cancer diagram only starts in 2010... are pre-2010 data to be found anywhere?
That is a good question--thanks for bringing this up. I'll have a look a bit later (because after a week of travels, I got back home and 'other stuff' to do). I'm certain it's 'somewhere', but in the few moments I looked around I may point you to the 2010 Cancer Report:
How do they explain this development? Maybe we can blame it on the men, as usual, for giving more HPV to the women? Would it be even worse if we didn't have such wonderful vaccines?
Well, cervical cancer rates (incidence) also went up after Gardasil became available in the US, raising efficacy concerns (to say nothing about safety issues).
Since you're asking about 'how do they explain' this, well, they don't. Don't ask, don't tell in this regard means: 'don't study it, hence there's no way of providing evidence-based answers'.
As an aside, if you check out Gardasil 9's package insert, one may also learn about rats that were used to 'study' risks in pregnancy (p. 11) or the following line when it comes to 'pediatric use':
'Safety and effectiveness have not been established in pediatric patients below 9 years of age' (ibid.)
On the subsequent page, the following sentence appears with respect to 'Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility':
'GARDASIL 9 has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility.' (p. 12)
So, the highly-hyped 'anti-cancer vaccine' has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential, to say nothing about genotoxicity or issues related to (male) fertility.
Would that remind you of some other injectable product?
'Would that remind you of some other injectable product?'
Erm, only all of them. I also see that Plotkin has fessed up (kind of) that there is no long term safety data for any vaccine to which many of us think no shit Sherlock. Don't even get me started on what is the proof that Virology is a serious science or was just made up to make economic theory look good and make money for Pharma. Thank goodness for the postcards as we can at least be fairly certain they are real, can't we?
Well, Plotkin et al.'s 'confession' is nothing new to the likes of you, me, and the other readers of these pages (or comparable ones). I'm pretty sure that 'virology™' exists, but it seems quite likely a 'social construct'.
Be that as it may, well, at least the postcards are real.
What a pity that girls have been offered the HPV vaccine since 2009, and the cancer diagram only starts in 2010... are pre-2010 data to be found anywhere?
That is a good question--thanks for bringing this up. I'll have a look a bit later (because after a week of travels, I got back home and 'other stuff' to do). I'm certain it's 'somewhere', but in the few moments I looked around I may point you to the 2010 Cancer Report:
https://www.kreftregisteret.no/en/General/Publications/Cancer-in-Norway/Cancer-in-Norway-2010/
HPV appears twice in that report, by the way.
There seems to be an amazing amount of publications on cervical cancer in Norway.
Rates went down from the 1970, and stabilized from 2000-2010 (p. 3):
https://nordscreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Cervix-Fact-Sheet-Norway-2016.pdf
But then they went up again (hard to spot in this image):
https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/3a75dcd37914489a848241277f0381be/2023-en-kreft.png
This one's easier on the eye (Fig. 2):
https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20220512084
How do they explain this development? Maybe we can blame it on the men, as usual, for giving more HPV to the women? Would it be even worse if we didn't have such wonderful vaccines?
Well, cervical cancer rates (incidence) also went up after Gardasil became available in the US, raising efficacy concerns (to say nothing about safety issues).
Since you're asking about 'how do they explain' this, well, they don't. Don't ask, don't tell in this regard means: 'don't study it, hence there's no way of providing evidence-based answers'.
As an aside, if you check out Gardasil 9's package insert, one may also learn about rats that were used to 'study' risks in pregnancy (p. 11) or the following line when it comes to 'pediatric use':
'Safety and effectiveness have not been established in pediatric patients below 9 years of age' (ibid.)
On the subsequent page, the following sentence appears with respect to 'Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility':
'GARDASIL 9 has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or impairment of male fertility.' (p. 12)
So, the highly-hyped 'anti-cancer vaccine' has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential, to say nothing about genotoxicity or issues related to (male) fertility.
Would that remind you of some other injectable product?
'Would that remind you of some other injectable product?'
Erm, only all of them. I also see that Plotkin has fessed up (kind of) that there is no long term safety data for any vaccine to which many of us think no shit Sherlock. Don't even get me started on what is the proof that Virology is a serious science or was just made up to make economic theory look good and make money for Pharma. Thank goodness for the postcards as we can at least be fairly certain they are real, can't we?
Well, Plotkin et al.'s 'confession' is nothing new to the likes of you, me, and the other readers of these pages (or comparable ones). I'm pretty sure that 'virology™' exists, but it seems quite likely a 'social construct'.
Be that as it may, well, at least the postcards are real.
What a strange world we live in.
Great article. Thank you. I also saw this one today. Gardasil Fails to Protect Against Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Over Time https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/gardasil-fails-to-protect-against?