THE Scottish Government has been challenged to explain why it introduced the cervical cancer vaccination programme in a series of questions by MSPs.
Cervarix was given to schoolgirls but more than 150 girls had experienced serious side effects. A number of MSPs were asking whether enough research had been carried out before introducing the vaccination programme in schools. Ms Robison`s claim that 150 adverse reactions only represented 0.2 percent of the population of girls immunised turned out to be erroneous and was actually much higher. According to the article: "GlaxoSmithKline insisted detailed tests were carried out and any reactions to Cervarix were within the range expected of a mass vaccination programme.
For concerned parents who do not wish their daughters to suffer side effects within the range expected of a mass vaccination programme accurate information is essential in order to assess the potential benefits to health against the possible risks. It is disturbing that inaccurate information was produced on NHS websites. What is more disturbing is that Dr. Diane Harper, the lead researcher in the development of Cervarix and Gardasil vaccines has questioned their safety and efficacy at a public conference in October 2009. See the Health Wyze Report Despite knowing that her corporate bosses would not be pleased her conscience would not allow her to remain quiet.
Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all H.P.V. infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years.
The Scottish Government website issued a statement 12 August 2012 that Cervarix would no longer be used in the vaccination programme and would be replaced by Gardasil which protects against 4 of the known 40 HPV strains. They go on to state that: "Gardasil has been used extensively in other countries including the United States, and in Europe, since it was first licensed in 2006." Recalling that Dr Harper spoke against Gardasil as well as Cervarix is this vaccine any safer? Anecdotal evidence from the United States suggests that it is not. See Natural News.com
From NHS Choices
Steve CA7 said on 04 July 2013
The Countess of Mar of the House of Lords asked the government on 2nd July 2013 how many reports of side effects have been received by the MHRA and how many of these side effects were considered serious.
Earl Howe replied 'a total of 7,230 suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reports with Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency via the Yellow Card Scheme up to 26 June 2013.
Of these 1,287 (17.8%) were considered serious.
It is an accepted fact by the MHRA that only 1 in 10 side effects are reported using the Yellow Card system.
In Japan 1,928 side effects have been reported and the Health Ministry has withdrawn its recommendation of the use of HPV vaccine.
Dr Ben Goldacre has this to say in Bad Science
Trial results can be withheld from doctors and patients, quite legally; trials are often poorly designed, or biased towards the sponsor’s product; doctors are misled about which treatments work best; and so on. These problems have a real impact on patient care, because we don’t have the information we need to choose the most effective treatments for patients. Often, we tolerate actively misleading information.
He goes on to say that these problems have persisted because "There haven’t been enough people from outside medicine, peering in and asking us the embarrassing questions."
A further complication for parents in Scotland is what is to happen if the Children & Young People Bill is passed into Scottish law and there is a `named person` to oversee the wellbeing of every child? What happens, if after doing their research, parents decide against the vaccination programme for their daughters because in their judgement the risks outweigh any benefits? Supposing the `named person` disagrees?