HPV Vaccine Linked to Soaring Infertility

[Swordsmyth]

The Centers for Disease Control reports that more than 12 percent of American women – one in eight—have trouble conceiving and bearing a child. Male fertility is plunging, too, and the trend is global. Something – or things — are robbing young women and men of their capacity to procreate and public health admits it doesn’t have a clue where to start to fix the emerging priority. Besides bantering about expanding access to costly and risky artificial reproductive technologies, very little is being done to discern the cause of the rising infertility crisis.
So, earlier this month, when an unprecedented study was released that looked at a database of more than eight million American women and singled out a whopping 25 percent increase in childlessness associated with one ubiquitous drug that young women have been taking for only a decade — in tandem with a marked decline in fecundity — you would have thought there would be significant interest from public health, the medical profession and the media, wouldn’t you?
A Common Denominator Behind Growing Infertility Rates

Instead, all three of these behemoths remain stone silent. The reason? Because the study, published in the current Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, examines the childbearing capacity of women who received the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine – compared to those who didn’t — and the results are chilling. No one in public health, medicine or mainstream media, which are tangled up in the money-making machine of this vaccine, dare to publicly question the “safe and effective” mantra they’ve promulgated about Merck and GSK pharmaceuticals’ “blockbuster” commodity worth billions.
The study is by Gayle DeLong, associate professor of economics and finance, at Baruch College at City University of New York. She observed that the declining birth rate had plunged in America in recent years – from 118 per 1,000 in 2007, to 105 in 2015 for the cohort aged 25 to 29.
The HPV vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the US in 2006 to prevent cervical cancer – an illness women face a 0.6% lifetime risk of being diagnosed with. Although it is diagnosed most frequently at age 47 in the United States, it was rolled out en masse, initially targeting girls aged 11 to 26 (and has since been marketed to boys as young as nine to prevent rare anal and penile cancers — a disease that afflicts 0.2 % of men in their lifetime).
DeLong had read a case study in the British Medical Journal by Australian physicians Deirdre Little and Harvey Ward, who described a 16-year-old girl whose regular menstruation ceased after receiving HPV vaccinations and she was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure.
In 2014, the doctors published a case series of more teens who had entered premature menopause — a phenomenon Little and Ward described as ordinarily “so rare as to be also unknown.” They raised troubling questions about some vaccine ingredients’ documented impact on reproduction, cited serious deficiencies (some would say criminal negligence) in preliminary vaccine trials and concluded that further research was “urgently required….for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.”
As well, between 2006 and 2014, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) cited 48 cases of ovarian damage associated with autoimmune reactions in HPV vaccine recipients. Between 2006 and May, 2018, VAERS cataloged other reproductive issues: spontaneous abortion (256 cases), amenorrhea (172 cases), and irregular menstruation (172 cases), all of which are likely under-reported symptoms.
All of this intrigued DeLong, who has followed the vaccine debate for years and makes no secret of the fact that she has two daughters, 18 and 21, both having been diagnosed on the autism spectrum, whom she saw regress developmentally and withdraw following vaccinations early in life. “I am skeptical of vaccine science and the safety studies that are done, or not done,” she says.
She set out to analyze information gathered in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women living in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Using logistic regression, she matched the young women for other variables, including age, and compared pregnancy as an outcome in those who received an HPV vaccine compared with those who did not get any of the shots.
“I just wanted to see if there was an issue,” says DeLong. “I certainly didn’t expect to find such a strong association.” Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived. For married women, the gap was also about 25%: 75% who did not receive the shot were found to have conceived, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. “Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot,” the study says. It concludes, as all studies like this do, that the data points to an association, not causation, between the new vaccine and reduced fertility but that further study is warranted.
If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children. It is millions of American children missing from a single cohort. The implication, considering the sweeping breadth of the global HPV vaccine campaign targeted now at both males and females aged nine years old and up, is staggering.
The Skeptic Response

Skeptics are reliable vaccine industry defenders. Armchair scientists who frequently hide behind pseudonyms, they have sort of schizophrenia about vaccines. They insist vaccines are powerfully immune-modulating drugs capable of altering the immune system’s response to infectious exposure. But they can’t accept that, like all drugs, vaccines can and do have thousands of documented long-term adverse reactions — especially because they are designed to induce the delayed manufacture of antibodies by the adaptive immune system. Because these responses are mediated by the immune system, they are diverse, unpredictable and profound.
As expected, the Skeptics welcomed DeLong’s research with snide and personal (read unscientific) attacks. They slammed her failure to include data on contraceptive use. As a result, DeLong intends to attach that data to an addendum on the study, but what she found and reported on Age of Autism’s website only bolsters the study’s findings. Among married women in the survey, 36.6 % of those who had received the HPV shot told the NHANES that they were using contraception (condoms at least half the time, birth control or injectables otherwise) compared to more than half (51.5%) of those who didn’t get the shot – a difference of almost 15%.
Less contraceptive use should translate to more babies among the vaccinated. But, it seems that the vaccinated women in the study were actually trying harder to conceive (or at least not so worried about it) but still having less luck – not good for the Skeptic argument.
DeLong “isn’t even an epidemiologist” the Skeptics howled. (In other words, shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.) To which she replies, “No. I’m not. I am a statistician, however. I would be grateful if epidemiologists would do their job and conduct this research thoroughly.” This is precisely what her study called for. If they did, mothers of vaccine injured children would not be required to.
DeLong cites another study, from Boston University’s Schools of Public Health and Medicine and the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) in North Carolina, which found no such association between HPV vaccination and impaired fertility. Interestingly, Boston University has been the recipient of tens of millions from globalist vaccine promoters Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as has RTI, an organization that has received more than $47 million dollars in grant funds in recent years. RTI has published a number of recent studies on HPV vaccine, including one jointly-funded with GSK (a vaccine manufacturer) on the safety of the company’s HPV vaccine, and another, cautioning public health agencies to “take special measures to ensure their messages are not perceived as sponsored by drug companies” lest they incite “reduced liking and trust” by parents who will be less likely to give the HPV vaccine to their sons. Other RTI publications describe “Promising alternative settings for HPV vaccination of US adolescents,” changing “provider behavior” to enhance HPV uptake and more.
The RTI study about HPV vaccine’s impact on fertility was based on patients’ own recall of vaccines received (remember how the Skeptics howled at self-reporting before?). But the study did not control for a far more important factor in fertility – age. Age in this context affects not just the possible effect of the vaccine itself on fertility, but fertility is skewed dramatically in favor of the young and the study lumps 18 year-olds in with 30-year-olds. As well, at the outset, it excludes 881 women from a pool of 5,020 because they were already trying – without luck – to conceive a baby for more than six months. This has the effect of shrinking the infertility finding overall. “These could be the women with ‘hard core’ issues of fecundity,” says DeLong, “but they are precisely the women who should be included.”


So, what is it about a vaccine targeting a virus associated with cancer of the human reproductive tract that could go so wrong? DeLong notes that both HPV vaccines contain aluminum, a toxic metal with documented potential to induce autoimmune self-attack, including on reproductive organs. HPV vaccines are loaded with aluminum: Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine contained 225 micrograms of nanoparticlized aluminum in each of three shots, totaling 675 micrograms; the “new improved” Gardasil 9 shots contain a total of 1500 micrograms – a wallop of stimulant for the immune system that DeLong thinks might just be “a tipping point” for youths who have had so many previous injections of aluminum in the schedule of 50 vaccines before school age.
Perhaps this is why HPV shots have such a high number of reported adverse events: 45,277 from its introduction in 2006 to May, 2018 (and these are considered to be vastly under-reported). The CDC states that all these reactions are normal and that HPV vaccines are safe without any adverse impact on maternal or fetal outcome in pregnancy.
A recent paper from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center cautions that this CDC assurance is based on incomplete data. It points out biases in reporting and gaps in data. “Certain adverse effects of the vaccine against HPV that have not been well studied as they are not well defined,” add the researchers who describe a host of documented, diverse autoimmune, neurological and cardiovascular disease in the wake of the vaccine. The most frequent reported symptoms after HPV vaccination are poorly understood – fainting, chronic pain with tingling or burning sensations, headaches, fatigue, and dizziness, nausea and other symptoms that are worsened on standing upright, for example.
HPV vaccination – as well as tetanus vaccination – has been linked in medical literature to a condition called anti-phospholipid syndrome which is a poorly defined disease caused when the immune system erroneously manufactures antibodies against certain lipid proteins found in membranes that are in a host of tissues — eyes, heart, brain, nerves, skin – and the reproductive system. One 2012 study by Serbian researchers at the Institute for Virology, Vaccines and Ser “Torlak” found that “hyperimmunisation” of the immune system with different adjuvants, including aluminum, in mice, resulted in induction of antiphospholipid syndrome and the tandem lowering of fertility.
Other research has implicated aluminum in conception problems. French infertility researcher Jean-Philippe Klein and his colleagues at the University of Lyon published the results of their 2014 study of the sperm of men seeking assistance at a French infertility clinic. They dispatched semen samples from 62 men who were having infertility issues to Christopher Exley’s aluminum research laboratory at Keele University in England where they were fluorescently stained to show the aluminum content as a luminescent blue. “Unequivocal evidence” of high concentrations of the metal were found, especially in the semen of men with low sperm counts. Clearly fluorescing and concentrated aluminum in the DNA-rich heads of the sperm led the researchers to speculate about what impact this may have on the ability to procreate and on the development of newly formed embryos.
Deirdre Little, the Australian GP who documented primary ovarian failure following HPV vaccination, has also criticized the fact that Merck’s product information was misleading about what sort of “saline” placebo was used in trials of the Gardasil vaccine – it failed to mention that the “placebos” contained both the high doses of aluminum as well as another scary ingredient, polysorbate 80. This chemical has exhibited delayed ovarian toxicity to rat ovaries at all injected doses tested over a tenfold range.
None of the trials accurately assessed the long-term impact of the vaccine on the reproductive health of girls, Deirdre and Ward said, adding that drug damage to reproductive health may take years or decades to manifest.


The elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is why the HPV vaccine is so heavily marketed to begin with? Why make a vaccine for a disease that afflicts less than 0.3% of people in their lifetime? And why include ingredients that are toxic, especially high doses of ingredients that scientists have objected to, and with documented toxicity to reproductive organs? Why not use a true control in the trials? What kind of scientist would do that kind of science? What kind of public health agency brushes off 45,277 reports of adverse events – including neurological and reproductive symptoms — among young women of childbearing age?
Answering these questions turns out to be a lot more awkward than it seems at first. There are chilling facts that are hard to set aside. There are, as recently as 2015, the charges by Catholic bishops and human rights activists that public health agencies had deliberately tainted tetanus vaccines given only to women of reproductive age in Kenya. Public health organizations denied they had laced tetanus vaccines with miscarriage-inducing Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) – a key sterilizing ingredient described in the extensive medical literature about the quest for a contraceptive vaccine to control population growth. The Kenyan bishops insisted they had laboratory evidence that was ignored and the issue was ignored like DeLong’s study.
Another inconvenient truth is that the very people funding the HPV vaccine juggernaut are the same people most interested in reducing birth rates. When Melinda Gates launched her Family Planning Summit in 2012 with the objective of bringing contraceptives to the world’s poor, it was clear she had one measure for that goal in mind: “If you see what’s happened in other countries that have had contraceptives, they use them first of all and the birth rates go down,” she said at the time. “The question is could it have come down even more quickly?”
Although she swore her campaign was “not about population control,” Gates’ goals are the same as those who conducted the mass sterilizations of Indian men on railway platforms in the 70s and who continue to sterilize Indian women today en masse to get the birth rate down. For Gates, success is not measured in access to clean water or energy or in the development of infrastructure or political freedom, it is measured in access to drugs, drugs she and her husband hold stock in: contraceptives and vaccines. Their success is measured by exporting what most western countries are facing as social catastrophe: demographic decline.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/hpv-vaccine...g-infertility/

[donnay]

The Truth is Out: Gardasil Vaccine Coverup Exposed

By Kelly Brogan, MD

Grassroots Awareness
At lunch with publishing wheeler-dealers discussing the state of affairs in women’s mental health, a soft-spoken pregnant woman seated to my left turned to me and said: “I know this is off-topic, but what do you think of the Gardasil vaccine? I know a 25 year old who got it and hasn’t been able to leave the house in months? It seems more and more people are seeing it’s a bad idea?”

This question and its implications moved me.

A woman who will soon be responsible for the welfare of another human, is asking questions she wouldn’t be asking if she just behaved like a good patient. She feels a curiosity fueled by doubt. She feels, inside herself, that something isn’t right about what we’ve been told and recommended. She senses, even if unconsciously, that the authorities we have vested with so much power, are not delivering on their promises.

Agnotology
One of my favorite medical terms, anosognosia, means lack of awareness of a deficit. I have come to find this useful in description of so many of my colleagues who practice the medicine they were trained to practice without conscious acknowledgement of its gross limitations and even hazards.

Relatedly, agnotology is the study of the propagation of ignorance. It is the meme-ification, societally, of coverups, half-truths, and misinformation. Simple catch phrases parroted in an echo chamber. It’s the creation of a mirage of information, often accomplished through concerted efforts like those described by journalist Sharyl Attkisson, as astroturfing.

I’ve always wondered whether those casting a dark veil over the Truth know that they are doing that? Or do the folks carefully crafting messages truly believe that they are working in the best interest of you and your beloved children. In following the published literature, I will sometimes catch a glimpse of the frustration felt by doctors and medical specialty organizations who are now finding that they have to cope with an unprecedented onslaught of inquiry from their silly patients who are, of course, reading too many pseudoscience internet blogs.

Sometimes, and never in mainstream media (thank goodness for the democratization of information the internet offers!), we learn about deliberate misinformation. Whistleblower William Thompson told us that the CDC had knowingly suppressed and manipulated data that demonstrated a clear statistical association between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American boys.

We also know that the 4250% increase in fetal deaths documented in the two vaccine flu season of 2009/2010 was known to the CDC but not to you or your girlfriend.

The Jig Is Up on Gardasil Vaccine
And now we may have some of the most damning evidence of deliberate misinformation around one of the least indicated and most reported of all vaccines – the HPV vaccine, most commonly represented by Gardasil.

A vaccine I remember feeling righteously excited for as a medical student – finally, a women’s vaccine!

The past 8 years of my research have led me to conclude that the promotion of this pharmaceutical product (and its new and improved versions) is nothing short of reckless endangerment of our youth.

Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, poses this important question:

“Is it ethical to put young women at risk of death or a disabling autoimmune disease at a pre-adolescent age for a vaccine that has not yet prevented a single case of cervical cancer, a disease that may develop 20-30 years after exposure to HPV, when the same can be prevented with regular Pap screening which carries no risks.”

On January 14, 2016, Sin Hang Lee, MD wrote an open letter of complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan. Documents made available to him through a Freedom of Information request in New Zealand revealed evidence that the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) deliberately misled the Japanese Expert Inquiry convened to explore concerns around HPV vaccine safety in 2014 hearings in Japan.

Email chains within the committee exposed a conspiratorial energy. Like a circle of teens cooking up an alibi to give an angry parent whose carpet was stained with wine stolen from their liquor cabinet. There is an undeniable air of an Us vs Them strategy. But aren’t these supposed to be officials looking out for the Greater Good and for collective wellness?

As Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez once said, “Medicine is the last religion. The hospital is the Temple. The priests wear white and they all speak their own internal language.” It isn’t hard to generate an air of authority in the realm of medical science. Throw some definitive statements in there. Use the phrase “expert panel” or “expert opinion” or “consensus”, and be sure to attach references to any statements in question. No one ever checks references, right?

Unfortunately for Drs. Pless, Dr. Petousis-Harris, and other committee members, Dr. Lee has checked references, and what he discovered could only be made right through “an immediate independent investigation and appropriate disciplinary action”.

You can read his 15 page letter here and learn how:

Declarations of harmlessness – science by proclamation – are made in the absence of available science to support these claims.
Concerns about contamination of HPV DNA fragments were dismissed without a shred of evidence: references were falsely attributed to conceal a total vacuum of peer-reviewed science on the safety of HPV L1 gene DNA fragments. These fragments were conflated with HPV-16 particles in hopes that this wave of the hand would quiet further inquiry.
Concerns about the antigenicity of aluminum is dismissed in direct conflict to available evidence of inflammatory response generated by vaccination as demonstrated by the WHO’s own data.
Tactics used to generate an illusion of scientific certainty including: CDC Technical Reports by ghostwriter(s) based on phone conversations, references to unpublished PhD material, and health blogs.
Dr. Lee offers a summary analysis of 22 key peer-reviewed references to summarize the available information on aluminum adjuvant as a biotoxicant.

He implies that while aluminum adjuvant may have sound intentions to stimulate a “productive”, antigen-specific immune response by damaging local cells at the injection site, sending out a stimulatory signal, the evidence of its biological activity in this vaccine is more complicated.

With the presence of viral DNA, the body recognizes the pathogen DNA as non-self, and this viral DNA/aluminum compound stimulates an inflammatory cytokine storm.

This is plausible mechanistic explanation for autonomic dysfunction, primary ovarian failure, and sudden death, the stories of which are circulating the globe.

He states, “There is no excuse for intentionally ignoring the scientific evidence. There is no excuse for misleading global vaccination policy makers at the expense of public interest.”

Hot Off the Press Indictment
A study published just this week uses a true placebo (rather than an aluminum placebo) to demonstrates behavioral and cognitive changes induced in rodents delivered the HPV vaccine and those injected with aluminum. They conclude:

“Moreover, anti-HPV antibodies from the sera of Gardasil and Gardasil+Pt-injected mice showed cross-reactivity with the mouse brain protein extract. Immunohistochemistry analysis revealed microglial activation in the CA1 area of the hippocampus of Gardasil-injected mice compared to the control. It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further leading to behavioral changes.”

This signal of harm for this FDA fast-tracked product has become undeniable.

When You Know Better, Do Better
What we need to know, we already know.

We are in an uncomfortable transition phase, one that Charles Eisenstein refers to as the space between the Story of Separation and the Story of Interbeing. We are allowing our previously constructed worldview – the beliefs underpinning the myth of science and technology as agents to free and better us – to crumble. We are watching the defenders of this Story scramble to keep the illusion of it alive, like that of Oz behind the curtain.

But Dorothy had what she needed to get home, the whole time.

Let go of the us vs germs paradigm. There’s a huge safety net to catch you. It is woven from the flora and fauna waiting patiently for our return.

https://kellybroganmd.com/truth-out-...ments-exposed/

[angelatc]

The

study is by Gayle DeLong, associate professor of economics and finance,....

That right there would give someone reading with a critical eye pause. Why would an econ prof be qualified to do, or even interested in, medical research?

[donnay]

The

That right there would give someone reading with a critical eye pause. Why would an econ prof be qualified to do, or even interested in, medical research?

Because not all people just read a paragraph and come to conclusions. Must be that 3rd grade reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head, eh?

Between 2006 and May, 2018, VAERS cataloged other reproductive issues: spontaneous abortion (256 cases), amenorrhea (172 cases), and irregular menstruation (172 cases), all of which are likely under-reported symptoms.

All of this intrigued DeLong, who has followed the vaccine debate for years and makes no secret of the fact that she has two daughters, 18 and 21, both having been diagnosed on the autism spectrum, whom she saw regress developmentally and withdraw following vaccinations early in life. “I am skeptical of vaccine science and the safety studies that are done, or not done,” she says.

She set out to analyze information gathered in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which represented 8 million 25-to-29-year-old women living in the United States between 2007 and 2014. Using logistic regression, she matched the young women for other variables, including age, and compared pregnancy as an outcome in those who received an HPV vaccine compared with those who did not get any of the shots.

“I just wanted to see if there was an issue,” says DeLong. “I certainly didn’t expect to find such a strong association.” Approximately 60% of women who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once compared to just 35% of women who had had an HPV shot had ever conceived. For married women, the gap was also about 25%: 75% who did not receive the shot were found to have conceived, while only 50% who received the vaccine had ever been pregnant. “Results suggest that females who received the HPV shot were less likely to have ever been pregnant than women in the same age group who did not receive the shot,” the study says. It concludes, as all studies like this do, that the data points to an association, not causation, between the new vaccine and reduced fertility but that further study is warranted.

If the association is causation, however, DeLong’s math suggests that if all the females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by two million. That’s not two million missing children. That’s two million women who can’t conceive one, two, or any children. It is millions of American children missing from a single cohort. The implication, considering the sweeping breadth of the global HPV vaccine campaign targeted now at both males and females aged nine years old and up, is staggering.

[angelatc]

$#@! I wish there was a way to grab the headline back away from your nonsense. Turns out my instincts were right. Warning: Big words that we don't understand because we aren't epidemiologists.

A Dumpster Fire of A Study. Here’s what she did. She used two databases. The first was the Natality Information section of the CDC Wide-ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database recording live births. There didn’t seem to me to be much point to this because all Delong did with it was to show that there was a sharp decline in the US birthrate beginning in 2007 associated with the economic meltdown that hasn’t recovered yet. As they say on Game of Thrones, it is (already) known.


Next, Delong used responses to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). This is a survey that collects data on health status of individuals in the United States along with demographic and socioeconomic information. The National Center for Health Statistic (NCHS) at the CDC administers the survey and selected a representative sample of the US population based upon complex sampling procedure. Delong notes that in 1999 NHANES asked females aged 12 and up whether they’ve ever been pregnant (or are pregnant now) and, if so, how many live births, miscarriages, stillbirths, tubal pregnancies, and abortions they’ve had. Then, starting in 2007, the survey started asking females aged 9 or above whether they’ve had an HPV vaccine. Delong then justifies the age range selected thusly:

In 2015, the NCHS moved these questions to the National Health Interview Survey, an annual survey that is not directly compatible with NHANES. The years of study are therefore 2007—when NHANES first asked about HPV vaccine uptake—to 2014, the final year NHANES included the questions concerning pregnancy and HPV shots.

Of course, that makes me suspicious right there. These are CDC-administered surveys and the databases are maintained by the CDC. The NHANES and NHIS datasets can both be accessed through the CDC website. Moreover, if the same basic survey questions were simply moved from one survey to the other, there’s little reason why Delong couldn’t have accessed later data.

Be that as it may, Delong used the dataset as described above. The study thus used various analyses to determine whether the odds of having been pregnant (the response variable) were influenced by explanatory variables such as receiving the HPV vaccine. What she found was this. Approximately 61% of women who had never received the HPV vaccine had become pregnant at least once, whereas only 35% of those who were exposed to the vaccine did. Among married women, 77% of women who had not received the vaccine had conceived, while only 51% of those who had received the vaccine had become pregnant. She then estimates that if 100% of females in the study had received the HPV vaccine there would have been 2 million fewer pregnancies. Among never-married women 44% of those who did not receive the HPV vaccine had been pregnant, while 28% of those who had received it had conceived. By univariate analyses, the results for all women and married women were statistically significant. However, when covariates (factors that could be confounders) were included in the model and logistic regression carried out, the results for never-married were no longer statistically significant.

Where it really gets interesting is the logistic regression including covariates in which the number of HPV shots received (one, two, or three) was related to the likelihood of getting pregnant. In this model, almost none of the comparisons were statistically significant. The only two where there was a statistically significant result were for the full sample, one shot versus no shots and three shots versus no shots. To me this is a huge red flag that the results are not robust and that there is no dose-response observed. If HPV vaccination was truly causative for infertility, there should be a dose-response curve. The effect seen should be bigger and more robust across more groups as the number of HPV vaccines received increases. It’s not.

There’s also another huge problem with this study. One of the most important covariates that could impact pregnancy rates is (obviously) usage of contraception. Yet nowhere in the analysis is there a consideration of contraception usage. Yes, Delong brings up the lack of statistical significance of the results among never-married women by suggesting that maybe most of them want to avoid pregnancy (which could be true), but, again, contraceptive use is an incredibly important factor, which was not even included as a covariate. My first thought was that maybe it was a question that wasn’t asked. It’s possible. Oh, wait. It’s not. The questionnaire asks whether a female has ever used oral contraceptives, if she is taking them now, and how long she’s taken them. So why did Delong not include oral contraceptive use in her analysis? She could have. She doesn’t even really discuss it other than discussion of contraceptive failure rates. I strongly suspect there was a reason for this. I also strongly suspect that a correlation between HPV uptake and oral contraceptive use (which is not unreasonable to hypothesize) could explain the results Delong observed and that correcting for oral contraceptive use in the survey sample would likely have resulted in the results of the logistic regression no longer being statistically significant. In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.

[angelatc]

And a follow up, where DeLong herself openly admits the first study is flawed.

Gayle DeLong tries to correct her anti-vaccine article by blogging

Let me be clear. She’s trying to claim, in this pseudo-update, that she corrected for contraceptive use. She did not. And she did not provide any evidence that if corrected for contraceptive use that there was a difference in pregnancy rate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

This is a bad article, and I stand by what I wrote before – it is a statistical mess, it provides no reasonable biological plausibility, and it lacks a thorough investigation of confounding variables. It does not show correlation, let alone causation.

Time to start calling me a shill and for DOnna to post another crank article that she can't actually discuss.

[donnay]

Conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research.
DeLong G1.
Author information

Abstract
Conflicts of interest (COIs) cloud vaccine safety research. Sponsors of research have competing interests that may impede the objective study of vaccine side effects. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, and medical journals may have financial and bureaucratic reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the risks of vaccines. Conversely, some advocacy groups may have legislative and financial reasons to sponsor research that finds risks in vaccines. Using the vaccine-autism debate as an illustration, this article details the conflicts of interest each of these groups faces, outlines the current state of vaccine safety research, and suggests remedies to address COIs. Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22375842

https://www.brighteon.com/5854559073001

[Firestarter]

Big pharma trolls have been attacking the author of the report, Gayle DeLong. The frustrating thing is that while they don’t have any evidence to defend the genocidal HPV vaccine, their ad hominem attacks do succeed in discrediting the study.
In July I read the study for free. The study isn’t freely viewable anymore. It now costs 42 Euro for a single day and a whopping 284 Euro for 30 days. If anybody knows of a better word than “censorship” please let me know...

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015.


One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 60% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
61.1% of the women not poisoned with HPV gave birth, compared to only 35.3% of the women poisoned with the HPV vaccine.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6653290

The big pharma trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, have to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility? It is highly probable that when a vaccine has adverse health effects (the HPV vaccines have even more adverse effects than most other vaccines) this includes infertility.

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of

In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...aper-blogging/

Surprise, surprise, Gayle DeLong has provided data that shows that HPV vaccines is associated with less contraceptive use:

I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.

This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/...ccination.html