Norway to Hold Fake Parliamentary Debate about HPV Jabs

No worries, it’s about political cover for buying GSK’s or Merck’s product, and it’s not about safety, efficacy, or reason

Today, we, sadly, need to follow-up on the HPV/Gardasil shenanigans up north. You see, a few months ago, legacy media was all up in arms about this particular injection—but it was because health insurance won’t cover one vaccine over another:

Gardasil / HPV Agit-Prop in Nordic Media

Basically, state broadcaster NRK ran a cheap agit-prop piece masquerading as ‘reporting™’, in which the main beef was that some parents chose to pay privately for ‘the better HPV vaccine’ for their children, which is said to be particularly important right now because…

HPV cancer that is increasing the most in Norway and Europe. There has been a fourfold increase. While penile cancer has also doubled.

‘Despite’ (sic) the availability of these HPV jabs, we’re witnessing these incidences, yet if what follows is any indication, we’re none the wiser.

Non-English content comes to you in my translation, with emphases [and snark] added.

---

Demand for a Political Debate About HPV Vaccines

The choice of a new vaccine against cervical cancer is about more than money, according to Høyre [Norway’s dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives]. Next week they are demanding a political debate from the Storting’s rostrum before the choice is made.

By Marianne Ytre-Eide, NRK, 9 Nov. 2024 [source]

These days, health authorities are deciding which vaccine against cervical cancer should be offered free of charge in the national childhood vaccination programme.

Two pharmaceutical companies are competing for the contract:

• One makes the vaccine that municipalities currently offer, called Cervarix [this is GlaxoSmithKline’s product, which has fallen out of favour in much of the US and Europe].

• The other makes the vaccine that most European countries have chosen, which is called Gardasil-9 [this is Merck’s product; note that neither GSK nor its competitor is mentioned.

NRK has been in contact with several experts [no irony there] on women’s health in Norway, who believe that Norway should switch to Gardasil-9 [this is what this fake ‘debate™’ in parliament is about: which pharma company should get multi-million contracts with the Norwegian healthcare system].

Einar Andreassen, Deputy Director of the Norwegian Directorate for Medical Products (DMP), has previously told NRK that they choose the one with the best offer [so, he’s basically telling Merck and GSK to fork over some perks]:

This is important in order to maximise the health benefits of the tax money we spend on cancer prevention [no need to worry about such things as, e.g., safety or even efficacy, right?].

He also said that the specialist working group has concluded that Cervarix provides just as good protection against cancer as Gardasil-9 [huhum, if they’re both equally ‘safe & effective™’, why debate switching? My take is: GSK either offers its product cheaper or has influenced enough members of the acquisition committee]:

‘If the specialist advisory panel is to consider whether the vaccine should also be effective against other things, they must receive political guidance on this’, explains Andreassen [please allow me to translate: one product—let’s call it Cervarix—is marketed as ‘safe & effective™’ vs. certain kinds of cervical cancer; the other product is now said to be also possibly effective vs. anal and penile cancer—which is why the notionally neutral Deputy Director of the Norwegian Directorate for Medical Products is asking for political cover; none of this parliamentary ‘debate’ has anything to do with health of preventive care].

Høyre Wants a Debate in the Storting

This is why the Conservative Party now wants a debate in parliament so that the government can consider whether DMP and those who make this choice should be given new political guidelines [and there you have it: the ‘debate™’ is neither about the pros and cons of either product, or the benefits vs. disadvantages of the vaccine program per se—but to provide political cover what, for all intents and purposes, is actually an individual’s decision that should come with informed consent: do keep the latter notion in mind as the article continues].

Erlend Svardal Bøe, a member of the Storting's Health and Care Committee, refers to earlier reports that tens of thousands of packs are being sold from pharmacies and that more and more people are buying vaccines for their children instead of giving them the free ones [this is the piece I translated in July and which you can read by clicking the top-linked piece (or here); the one thing I’d mention here is that a three-jab course of Gardasil-9 costs approx. US$ 500 in Norway].

Both Jabs Protect Against Cancer [that’s the magic word for politicos]

Today, all children receive a vaccine that protects against cervical cancer in the childhood vaccination programme [that is, not all children here in Norway: I know for certain that my kids won’t get these jabs].

Both vaccines in the competition protect against cancer [I’m sure the journo who wrote this piece hasn’t done her due diligence, because ‘against cancer’ is so unclear while both products come with several restrictions and limitations, e.g., the are said to work vs. certain strains of HP viruses said to promote cervical cancer, but better not muddy the waters here, right?], but the new vaccine protects against more viruses and some STDs [see what I mean? Gardasil-9 ‘protects’, it is said, ‘against more viruses and some STDs’, which isn’t what the ‘cancer prevention’ aspect is actually about, which is why there is this perceived need for political cover].

[Erlend Svardal Bøe is, of course, a member of Høyre] The current vaccine [Cervarix] has provided sufficient protection against cervical cancer. But there has also been new knowledge since the last time it we debated its acquisition, and several experts are in favour of changing the vaccine.

[I’ll just throw this in for good measure: Norway is one of the few countries that still offer Cervarix (in the US, it was removed from market in 2016 due to virtually inexistent demand from customers), and in the case of the fake debate™ about two different poison juices, it is a-o.k. to be informed by ‘new knowledge’ while, as is the case with the modRNA poison/death juices, no such new knowledge has, so far, changed anything—the take-away being that all vaccines are created equal, but some are more equal than others]

He says the increase in other HPV-related diseases should not be taken lightly [but…if we’re vaccinating teens ‘against cancer’ and cancer incidences increase, shouldn’t we be having a different debate?].

Young People Doubt the Free Vaccine

[first of all, none of these things are ‘free’, because someone else’s taxes, mine included, pay for that thing]

Gynaecologist Siri Kløkstad works at the ‘Sex and Society’ clinic in Oslo. She says there are many questions from young women and men about this topic:

They have many questions. Many have heard that there is now a different vaccine available to the one they’ve received. Some wonder what they’ve been given in the childhood vaccination programme, and whether it's good enough. [while I don’t doubt these questions, I do have strong reservations about the honesty and integrity of the ‘experts™’ young men and women must rely one: if the question is merely, as is indicated, whether the poison jab they’ve received (Cervarix) is ‘good enough’ vs. the poison juice they may have taken (Gardasil-9), then there’s something seriously wrong with these people, both those who ask and esp. those doctors who are asked for advice]

She says they’re wondering if they should upgrade, if they need a top-up dose of Gardasil 9, because they’ve heard it’s better [so, pray tell, why isn’t it mentioned here or elsewhere (see below) that, if considering taking Gardasil-9, the following caution is found in the package insert: ‘Tell the health care professional if you or your child (the person getting GARDASIL 9)…take any medicines, even those you can buy over the counter’—but it’s of course perfectly fine and sane to take Gardasil-9 as a booster, right?].

The Price is Important [and this is what the debate is about]

It is the price of the medicine, assessed against its benefits [there are, of course, no disadvantages to vaccines discussed in parliament and by ‘experts™’], that determines what the authorities choose.

State Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Care Services, Usman A. Mushtaq, says Storting has decided that the purpose of the vaccine is to prevent serious illness and death:

The current HPV vaccine protects against the two types of HPV that cause most cases of cancer and precancerous lesions. The Ministry of Health and Care Services does not choose which vaccines are purchased.

This is done in accordance with the rules on public procurement in line with the guidelines for the childhood vaccination programme.

The tendering process emphasises these guidelines, in line with the Public Procurement Act.

According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, both vaccines protect against serious diseases and cancer. They therefore believe that the vaccines can be assessed equally against each other. [Hørey politico] Bøe disagrees with this:

That’s why I think it’s right to raise it in the Storting to discuss it.

There are now two pharmaceutical companies competing for this contract. And there are major financial forces at work to win this contract. How do you know you’re not running someone else’s errand here? [I almost fell off my chair laughing about this question]

I don’t think we are [I think therefore I am, used to be the maxim of Enlightened Reasoning; Mr. Bøe doesn’t think]. We must be able to have political discussions about different knowledge bases without making these kinds of claims [behold the utmost absurdity: this is a funding issue, which is political, about a product that is injected into children and teenagers—their health and safety doesn’t matter in such political debates; as an aside, why is this politico making decisions about medicinal matters? What happened to ‘trust the experts™’ (/sarcasm)].

Should Prioritise Women’s Health More Highly

Professor of health law Anne Kjersti Befring at the University of Oslo believes that Norway must prioritise women’s health more highly [add: ‘than others’ health; what a wondrous thought by this legal ‘expert™’, because, as the Norwegian constitution proscribes, men and women are equal, doing so would be, well, discriminatory].

She says that financial considerations must be assessed in a broader perspective than the purchase price [sure, like safety and efficacy? Of course that’s not what professor Befring means]:

Utility considerations and the risk of serious illness are arguments in favour of offering the best quality HPV vaccine that protects against multiple viruses. I think that Norway is a rich country and should prioritise women’s health more than we have done in recent years [as a man, I disrespectfully disagree, and I do so with tons of contempt because, well, the law says both sexes are equal].

According to Apotekarforeininga [the Pharmacists’ Association], a dose of the vaccine costs NOK 1,600 for a private individual. An adult needs three doses to be effective. The total cost is therefore NOK 4,800 [around US$ 500].

[Oslo-based gynaecologist Siri] Kløkstad believes the current scheme is unfair:

Most people will choose the broader vaccine, or Gardasil-9, when they hear it’s available. If they can afford it. Because it is quite a lot more expensive than Cervarix.

---

Bottom Lines

It is quite rare to find so many nonsequiturs and illogical statements as in this piece. Just take the last comment by the OBGYN from Oslo: Gardasil-9 is ‘a lot more expensive than Cervarix’.

Dr. Kløkstad believes the issue of vaccination to be one of social justice rather than anything else.

This is, of course, utter nonsense, and I hope this bullcrap won’t be making it through the parliamentary and other committees, for if it does, and, e.g., I’d like to buy a new car or go on a vacation that I can’t afford, my claim to gov’t handouts is essentially identical.

Similarly laughable is the law (sic) professors claim to prioritise one group of people (women) over the other (men), which, as the good legal expert™ that she is, she surely knows isn’t legal or constitutional.

Høyre politico’s Bøe’s anti-Cartesian reasoning (pun intended) is even more laughable, and I merely bring it up because of its utter and total stupidity.

On a more serious notion, let’s also note, for good measure, that even (sic) an institution so notoriously corrupt and morally bankrupt as the CDC notes several contraindications and risks that might prevent people from considering Gardasil-9:

HPV vaccine is not recommended for use during pregnancy.

But that doesn’t apply to the modRNA poison/death juices.

The FDA-listed package insert is even more circumspect here:

Who should not get GARDASIL 9?

Anyone with an allergic reaction to:

• A previous dose of GARDASIL 9
• A previous dose of GARDASIL®
• Yeast (severe allergic reaction)
• Amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
• Polysorbate 80

What should I tell the health care professional before getting GARDASIL 9?

Tell the health care professional if you or your child (the person getting GARDASIL 9):

• Are pregnant or planning to get pregnant.
• Have immune problems, like HIV or cancer.
• Take medicines that affect the immune system [which doesn’t?].
• Have a fever over 100°F (37.8°C).
• Might have had an allergic reaction to a previous dose of GARDASIL 9 or GARDASIL.
• Take any medicines, even those you can buy over the counter [see my above point?]

We note, in passing, that Wikipedia notes the following about efficacy:

Gardasil has been shown to be partially effective (approximately 38%) in preventing cervical cancer caused by ten other high-risk HPV types.

With vaccine effectiveness below 50%, it’s impossible to empirically differentiate between chance (association) vs. resulting from the administration of any such injection.

Speaking of injections, these HPV shots contain, among other things, sodium borate, or Borax, which has been used as a pesticide in the US since 1946.

As to the adjuvant used, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), here’s a 2021 paper informing you and I that this adjuvant, which is ‘primarily used in the Gardasil vaccines against human papilloma virus, has been criticised for lack of evidence for its safety’. It gets worse from here:

The EMA [European Medicines Agency] reports that AAHS was introduced without any prelicensure safety evaluation. The adjuvant is described by the company to be both physically and functionally distinct from all other previously used aluminium adjuvants. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of benefits and harms of the adjuvant AAHS.

But, sure, go ahead and talk about the price tag.

If this wasn’t all so stupid, it could be satire.

But it’s ‘real’, which renders this an evil farce.