Tag: hpv myths

Who Is Judy Mikovits?

Dr. Judy Mikovits has a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, doing her thesis on Negative Regulation of HIV Expression in Monocytes.

She had several papers published with Dr. Frank Ruscetti, with whom she continues to work.

Instead of research, it seems that they now do:

  • Advocacy for vaccine injury legal cases worldwide. 
  • Research and documentation on medical exemptions for vaccinations.

What happened?

Who Is Judy Mikovits?

After working at the National Cancer Institute, it seems that Judy Mikovits became research director of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI).

A paper by Mikovits and Ruscetti was retracted because no one else could replicate the work.

She was eventually fired after a paper she was lead author on, which found xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) in patients with CFS, was retracted and the institute accused her of stealing notebooks and manipulating data.

“But the leader of the team that authored the 2009 paper, researcher Judy Mikovits, apparently presented the same figure — carrying different labels and supporting a different point — in a talk given at a conference on Sept. 23 in Ottawa.”

Manipulation alleged in paper linking virus, chronic fatigue syndrome

An even larger study found no evidence of XMRV infections in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, even as she had claimed the virus could cause CFS, Parkinson’s disease, autism and multiple sclerosis.

The source of XMRV in her patients?

“Well-controlled experiments showed that detection of XMRV was due to contaminated samples and was not a marker of or a causal factor in prostate cancer or CFS.”

Johnson et al on Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus (XMRV) and the Safety of the Blood Supply

The virus was in a contaminated cell line in which she and others were doing research. The virus wasn’t in the actual patients themselves.

Judy Mikovits on Vaccines

Before her paper was retracted and she was fired from her lab, Judy Mikovits did actually do research on viruses and she is a scientist. She didn’t do research on vaccines though.

Judy Mikovits is still finding retroviruses wherever she looks for them...
Judy Mikovits is still finding retroviruses wherever she looks for them…

That seems to be something she talks about a lot now though:

  • at anti-vaccine rallies
  • at anti-vaccine conferences
  • in anti-vaccine videos

Her claim to fame seems to be talking about contaminated vaccines and bashing Gardasil. And deep state conspiracy theories about why she was arrested and lost her job.

To be clear, a rotavirus vaccine was found to be contaminated with DNA of porcine circovirus type 1.  While that might sound a little scary, it is important to keep in mind that the PCV1 virus doesn’t actually cause disease in people and these weren’t even “biologically active virus particles.”

PCV1 isn’t a retrovirus though and Judy Mikovits wasn’t even the researcher who discovered the contamination, which has since been resolved. 

“These findings do not indicate the presence of either ALV or EAV infection in MMR vaccine recipients and provide support for current immunization policies.”

Hussain et al on Lack of Evidence of Endogenous Avian Leukosis Virus and Endogenous Avian Retrovirus Transmission to Measles Mumps Rubella Vaccine Recipients

Studies have looked at retrovirus contamination of vaccines, but they were  done over 17 years ago. And not by Mikovits. Studies that confirmed that vaccines are safe.

None of this has kept Judy Mikovits from scaring people about vaccines, especially the HPV vaccine.

“Cervical cancer is not a public health threat. It’s not an infectious disease. Why is it in the Department of Public Health? Why are we mandating every child over 9 years old, and I heard soon to be pregnant women, to get this vaccine? It makes no sense.”

Judy Mikovits

It is really hard to understand how someone who worked at the National Cancer Institute could make these statements. Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in women.

There is, of course, no mandate for 9-year-olds to get the HPV vaccine. In the United States, HPV vaccination is recommended, beginning at age 11 to 12 years. The HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women and while several vaccines are recommended, no vaccines are actually mandated in pregnancy.

“It was never developed to prevent cancer. It was developed and approved to prevent warts. Warts are not a public health threat. It’s beyond… When scientists like myself, and I work in cancer and AIDS hear this, we are just…”

Judy Mikovits

Gardasil and Cervarix were developed to prevent HPV infections, which cause cervical cancer. HPV can also cause genital warts.

“I think we need to ban… Japan and India have, all HPV vaccinations now, until the appropriate studies are done, until the patients are tested…”

Judy Mikovits

Neither Japan nor India have banned HPV vaccinations.

Why should we? The HPV vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary.

And why would anyone listen to Judy Mikovits? 

More on Judy Mikovits

Should You Get an Extra Dose of Gardasil9?

Believe it or not, the first human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was approved way back in 2006.

HPV Vaccine is Cancer Prevention.

And believe it or not, we are now on our third version of the vaccine, which provides protection against even more strains of HPV.

HPV Vaccine Timeline

So we have gone from:

  • Cervarix – HPV serotypes 16, 18 (2006)
  • Gardasil – HPV serotypes 6, 11, 16, 18 (2006)
  • Gardasil9 – HPV serotypes 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 (2014)

And with each new vaccine, there comes more protection against anal and genital warts and anal, genital, head and neck, and cervical cancers.

Gardasil9, the only HPV vaccine available in the United States, increases the protection level against cervical cancer from 70 to 90%!

Should You Get an Extra Dose of Gardasil9?

Has your child already finished their HPV vaccine series?

With which HPV vaccine?

To be clear, if they have finished the series, then they are considered to be fully vaccinated and protected.

“Persons who have completed a valid series with any HPV vaccine do not need any additional doses.”

National Cancer Institute on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines

Remember, the key, high-risk strains that cause most HPV-associated cancer are HPV-16 and 18, which are present in all of the HPV vaccines.

The extra coverage in Gardasil9 to HPV strains 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 could prevent an additional 10% of invasive HPV associated cancers or about 3,800 cases each year though, mostly in women.

Should you get any extra doses of Gardasil9 for this extra coverage?

“Administration of a 3-dose regimen of 9vHPV vaccine to adolescent girls and young women 12-26 years of age who are prior qHPV vaccine recipients is highly immunogenic with respect to HPV types 31/33/45/52/58 and generally well tolerated.”

Garland et al on Safety and immunogenicity of a 9-valent HPV vaccine in females 12-26 years of age who previously received the quadrivalent HPV vaccine.

While safe to do and it works, there is no formal recommendation that anyone actually get any extra doses of Gardasil9 at this time.

It is something to consider if you want the extra protection though.

Will we get even more coverage in future HPV vaccines? The future might come in different types of vaccines or even in therapeutic vaccines. There doesn’t seem to be a new version of Gardasil with expanded strain coverage in the immediate pipeline though.

More on Getting an Extra Dose of HPV9

Did the FDA Approve a New HPV Vaccine for Adults?

What do you know about the HPV vaccine?

Hopefully you know that it can prevent cervical cancer and that lots of folks spread misinformation that is intended to confuse and scare you away from getting vaccinated and protected with it and other vaccines.

Did the FDA Approve a New HPV Vaccine for Adults?

News that the approved ages for Gardasil have been expanded will likely add to that confusion for a little while.

The FDA simply approved the expanded use of the existing Gardasil 9 vaccine – not a new vaccine.
The FDA simply approved the expanded use of the existing Gardasil 9 vaccine – not a new vaccine.

The first thing to understand is that the FDA did not approve a new Gardasil vaccine for older adults.

They very simply expanded the age recommendations for who should get the existing Gardasil 9 vaccine, which was approved back in 2014, replacing the original Gardasil vaccine, which was approved in 2006.

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved a supplemental application for Gardasil 9 (Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 9-valent Vaccine, Recombinant) expanding the approved use of the vaccine to include women and men aged 27 through 45 years.”

Why the new age indication?

“In a study in approximately 3,200 women 27 through 45 years of age, followed for an average of 3.5 years, Gardasil was 88 percent effective in the prevention of a combined endpoint of persistent infection, genital warts, vulvar and vaginal precancerous lesions, cervical precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer related to HPV types covered by the vaccine.”

But isn’t the whole point of giving the HPV vaccine to preteens that you want to get them vaccinated and protected before they are sexually active and exposed to and infected by HPV?

Sure, but if you didn’t, and unless you are sure that you have been exposed to and have been infected by all 9 types of HPV strains that Gardasil 9 protects you against, then the vaccine is still a good idea when you are older.

Except FDA approval doesn’t automatically mean that your insurance company will pay for it.

That usually comes once a vaccine is formally added to the immunization schedule by the ACIP.

“In a 2005 study, 92% of insurance plans reported following Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations to determine covered vaccines; of those, 60% could extend coverage within 3 months after issuance of recommendations and 13% in 1 month.”

Lindley et al on Financing the Delivery of Vaccines to Children and Adolescents: Challenges to the Current System

And Obamacare still requires insurance plans to provide ACIP-recommended vaccines at no charge.

Will Gardasil 9 be added to the immunization schedule for adults?

The extended age indication for Gardasil 9 will be discussed at the next ACIP meeting.
The extended age indication for Gardasil 9 will be discussed at the next ACIP meeting.

We should know sooner, rather than later. It is on the agenda for the next ACIP meeting on October 25…

More on Gardasil for Older Adults

Crisis or Crossroads at the Cochrane Collaboration?

Not surprisingly, Peter Gøtzsche has had some defenders.

“A scandal has erupted within the Cochrane Collaboration, the world’s most prestigious scientific organisation devoted to independent reviews of health care interventions. One of its highest profile board members has been sacked, resulting in four other board members staging a mass exodus.”

Maryanne Demasi, PhD on Cochrane – A sinking ship?

Who is Maryanne Demasi?

“DISCLOSURE: Maryanne Demasi is a science reporter and a researcher working with Prof Peter C. Gøtzsche, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, and was present in Edinburgh at the time of the meeting, but not present in the discussion room.”

Oh…

Someone who works with Peter Gøtzsche is defending him. That doesn’t sound too surprising.

It is also not surprising the way that some folks are describing Peter Gøtzsche’s expulsion, saying that it was only about his behavior and not his work.

Did Peter Gøtzsche get expelled because of his work or behavior?
Did Peter Gøtzsche get expelled because of his work or behavior?

But the problem wasn’t that he wrote a critique of a Cochrane HPV meta-analsysis, but that his critique was so poorly done!

“I think it’s a hatchet job by people with several axes to grind, that needed better editorial peer review. I would be surprised if Cochrane’s investigation and update resulted in changed conclusions.”

Hilda Bastian on The HPV Vaccine: A Critique of a Critique of a Meta-Analysis

A hatchet job by people with several axes to grind…

Not the kind of work you would expect from a member of the Governing Board of the Cochrane Collaboration, especially after most of the same charges were refuted when they were made against the European Medicines Agency.

Did Peter Gøtzsche allow a bias against screening for cancer harm the Cochrane Collaboration?
Did Peter Gøtzsche allow a bias against screening for cancer harm the Cochrane Collaboration?

And it wasn’t even the first time that he was accused of harming the Cochrane Collaboration .

“Cochrane wishes to state unequivocally that the views Professor Gøtzsche has expressed on the benefits and harms of psychiatric drugs are not those of the organization. As primarily a research organization Cochrane does not make clinical recommendations and we have not done so on this issue.”

Statement from Cochrane

How many times has the Cochrane Collaboration had to distance itself from the views of its Board Members?

How many times has the Cochrane Collaboration had to distance itself from the views and work of Peter Gøtzsche and the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration?

More on Peter Gøtzsche

 

Crisis at the Nordic Cochrane Centre

This could be it for the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

“I regret to inform you that I have been expelled from membership in the Cochrane Collaboration by the favourable vote of 6 of the 13 members of the Governing Board. No clear reasoned justification has been given for my expulsion aside from accusing me of causing “disrepute” for the organization.”

Peter Gøtzsche on A moral governance crisis: the growing lack of democratic collaboration and scientific pluralism in Cochrane

Or at least for Peter Gøtzsche and his association with the Cochrane Collaboration, which he co-founded in 1993.

I’m not sure how he thinks that there was no clear justification for his being expelled though.

Crisis at the Nordic Cochrane Centre

Most folks understand why Peter Gøtzsche was expelled from the Cochrane Collaboration…

They remember that he recently published a poorly done analysis in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias that was critical of a Cochrane Review on the HPV vaccine, Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors, which concluded that the HPV vaccines work and that they are safe.

While Gøtzsche’s analysis prompted the Cochrane Collaboration to initiate an investigation, they concluded that his analysis “substantially overstated its criticisms” and that the allegations were “not warranted and provided an inaccurate and sensationalized report of their analysis.”

Is that it?

Nope.

Many people are also familiar with the Nordic Cochrane Centre because of their involvement in continued complaints about the HPV vaccine. Complaints that were not approved by the Cochrane Collaboration and that were not an official Cochrane viewpoint!

“…we highlight here how academic colleagues, under the purported banner of a respected authority, raise concerns about the HPV vaccine but they cite an evidence base of small and poor quality studies and ignore the extensive wealth of global literature that vividly demonstrate the excellent efficacy and safety record of the vaccine.”

Head et al on Inadvisable anti-vaccination sentiment: Human Papilloma Virus immunisation falsely under the microscope

Complaints that had already been investigated and dismissed by the European Medicines Agency and refuted by many other studies.

“This week at its meeting in Edinburgh, Cochrane’s Governing Board considered, as planned, the findings of an independent review and additional complaints related to the conduct of a Member. The Board’s conclusion was communicated to the individual concerned and is part of an ongoing process. The Co-Chairs of the Board will provide further details once this process is complete.

Following this, four Board members (Gerald Gartlehner, David Hammerstein Mintz, Joerg Meerpohl and Nancy Santesso) decided to resign as Cochrane trustees with immediate effect.”

Message from the Governing Board

Unfortunately, Gøtzsche’s being expelled led to others leaving the Cochrane Governing Board, including two appointed trustees who volunteered to step down to to comply with Cochrane’s Articles of Association.

Although they may not have been defending Gøtzsche's opinions or behaviors, four other board members resigned in solidarity.
Although they may not have been defending Gøtzsche’s opinions or behaviors, four other board members resigned in solidarity.

We can hope that this is the end of the matter, as Cochrane will soon have an election for new board members.

Peter Gøtzsche is out at the Cochrane Collaboration.
Peter Gøtzsche is out at the Cochrane Collaboration.

Will he be kept on at the Nordic Cochrane Centre, which he founded? Will the Nordic Cochrane Centre be allowed to keep ‘Cochrane’ in their name?

The Nordic Cochrane Centre is primarily funded by the Danish Government, and what do they get besides all of the anti-HPV vaccine stuff?

“Antidepressant drugs are another major killer that people could do well without.”

Peter C Gøtzsche: Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death

Peter Gøtzsche seems to be against cancer screening, psychiatric drugs, and thinks that Big Pharma has corrupted health care. Is that the “plurality of opinions, views, and perspectives” that folks want at Cochrane or anywhere else in medicine?

Unfortunately, I bet this isn’t the last that we have heard from him.

More on the Crisis at the Nordic Cochrane Centre

About the Cochrane HPV Controversy

Have you heard about the Cochrane HPV controversy?

What controversy?

Well, yeah, but anti-vaccine folks are crowing about what is essentially a letter that was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine journal.

About the Cochrane HPV Controversy

What’s the controversy?

Seems that the folks at Cochrane Reviews recently published a review, Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors, which concluded that the HPV vaccines work and that they are safe.

That doesn’t sound controversial…

Well, it seems that some other folks, associated with the Nordic Cochrane Center, disagreed. They published an “analysis” in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias.

So who do we believe when we have Cochrane vs Cohrane?

Who is the Nordic Cochrane Centre?

Some people will be familiar with the Nordic Cochrane Centre because of their involvement in complaints about the HPV vaccine that were investigated by the European Medicines Agency.

Cochrane Nordic has been filing multiple complaints with the EMA about HPV vaccine safety for years.
Cochrane Nordic has been filing multiple complaints with the EMA about HPV vaccine safety for years.

Complaints that were initially triggered by a case series that was published by Dr. Louise Brinth, when she was head of the Danish Syncope Group, but who is now part of the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

While the Cochrane Collaboration has a very good reputation, you can't really say the same about the Nordic Cochrane Centre.
While the Cochrane Collaboration has a very good reputation, you can’t really say the same about the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Complaints that were not approved by the Cochrane Collaboration and that were not an official Cochrane viewpoint!

“…we highlight here how academic colleagues, under the purported banner of a respected authority, raise concerns about the HPV vaccine but they cite an evidence base of small and poor quality studies and ignore the extensive wealth of global literature that vividly demonstrate the excellent efficacy and safety record of the vaccine.”

Head et al on Inadvisable anti-vaccination sentiment: Human Papilloma Virus immunisation falsely under the microscope

Complaints that had already been investigated and dismissed by the European Medicines Agency.

“In conclusion, in clinical trials conducted in the 9 to 26-year- old age range, vaccination was generally well tolerated with no apparent adverse health impact following completion of the vaccination regimen.”

Block et al Clinical trial and post-licensure safety profile of a prophylactic human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) l1 virus-like particle vaccine.

Complaints that are also refuted by many other studies.

So we don’t actually have Cochrane vs Cochrane…

The Cochrane HPV Review

Once you read the complaint against the Cochrane HPV review, you realize that this isn’t even just about the Cochrane HPV review.

The main faults that the Nordic Cochrane Centre folks found is that the Cochrane review left out a bunch of what they consider to be eligible HPV vaccine trials, even though “twenty-six randomised trials were identified that contained data on vaccine efficacy and/or safety, which all together enrolled 73,428 women.”

But if this was just about a systemic review which didn’t stick to protocol about which studies to include, then why do the Nordic Cochrane Centre folks go on and on about placebos and active comparators?

“The Cochrane authors mistakenly used the term placebo to describe the active comparators.”

Lars Jørgensen et al. on The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and
ignored important evidence of bias

Would you be surprised to know that one of Nordic Cochrane Centre’s arguments to the EMA was about placebos?

“In all the vaccine trials apart from a small one, the “placebo” contained aluminium adjuvant, which is suspected of being neurotoxic.”

Cochrane Nordic Complaint to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) over maladministration at the EMA

Why do they talk about placebos?

Most of these folks want pure saline placebos to be used in clinical trials, even though doing so would make it hard to keep the trials blinded.

Placebos don’t have to be inert though. The BMJ and the Nordic Cochrane Centre authors mistakenly corrected the Cochrane authors on their use of the term placebo.

They make plenty of other mistakes too.

“The Cochrane authors did not mention a study from 2017 by the WHO UMC that found serious harms following HPV vaccination overlapping with two syndromes: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).”

Lars Jørgensen et al. on The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and
ignored important evidence of bias

What study?

Jørgensen cites a commentary that describes “a signal based on both spontaneous reports and published case series that is best characterized as a potential association between HPV vaccination and dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system.”

“There is currently no conclusive evidence to support a causal relationship between the HPV vaccine and POTS. It is of utmost importance to recognize that although temporal associations may be observed, conclusions of causality cannot be drawn from case reports and case series due to the small sample size and lack of control population inherent to this type of scientific literature. If POTS does develop after receiving the HPV vaccine, it would appear to do so in a small subset of individuals and would be difficult to distinguish from the normal prevalence and incidence of the disorder.”

Butts et al on Human Papillomavirus Vaccine and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: A Review of Current Literature

So who do you believe?

Researchers who published a systemic review as part of the Cochrane Review Groups that confirms that the HPV works and that it is safe, or a group who seems to have an axe to grind against the HPV vaccines?

Update on the Cochrane HPV Controversy

Apparently, Cochrane has taken the Nordic Cochrane Centre complaints seriously enough to launch an investigation.

“Our current investigations appear to show that there may be a handful of missed but potentially eligible studies, but that this falls substantially below ‘nearly half of the eligible trials’.”

David Tovey, editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library

And not surprisingly, Tovey stated that “To date, we also have no reason to believe that the main conclusions of the review relating to benefit and serious adverse effects are unsafe.”

And yet, as with their complaints to the EMA, resources get wasted as the attacks are put down.

More on the Nordic Cochrane Centre HPV Attacks

Vaccine Movies and Videos

All of the attention that Robert De Niro gave the movie Vaxxed has many people realizing that there are anti-vaccine movies out there.

Promoted as documentaries, they mostly include the same anti-vaccine ‘experts’ that scare parents away from vaccinating their kids on the Internet.

These types of movies include:

  • Vaxxed
  • The Greater Good
  • Trace Amounts
  • Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis?
  • Bought
  • Man Made Epidemic
  • Sacrificial Virgins
  • The Truth About Vaccines

Most are propaganda, without even a trace amount of truth in them, and should not be used as a research tool to help you make a decision about vaccines.

Vaccine Movies and Documentaries

What about movies to actually help you get educated about vaccines?

Every Last Child takes a look at the fight to end polio in Pakistan.
Every Last Child takes a look at the fight to end polio in Pakistan.

Watch these movies and documentaries:

Have you seen or heard about any of these movies about vaccines?

Vaccine Videos

Just as bad as so-called vaccine documentaries, many of the vaccine videos that you find on You-Tube are also filled with misinformation and propaganda, including many vaccine scare videos.

Where are you Jon Stewart? Measles is still around...
Where are you Jon Stewart? Measles is still around…

Watch the following vaccines videos instead:

Still have questions?

More on Vaccine Movies and Videos