It was once found out that there is a correlation between a previous infection with the magical Human papilloma virus (HPV) and cervical cancer.
Even though “correlation” isn’t “causation” they invented out of thin air that HPV causes cervical cancer.
Then they looked for vaccines that supposedly prevent infections with HPV.
Even if you assume that an infection with HPV increases your risk of cancer, it could very well be that poisoning somebody with an HPV vaccine increases the cancer rates (statistical information proves this).
As for this “study”...
The “scientists” forgot to report that they don’t have a placebo control group. There is no reason to believe that the unvaccinated young women and vaccinated women are similar. If hypothecically speaking, women with a compromised immune system or other health problems weren’t vaccinated, it would appear logical that these would have higher rates of illness (including cancer).
That only 23% of the unvaccinated women were screened, compared to 51% in fully vaccinated women, shows that these 2 groups aren’t similar. The “scientists” forgot to figure out why this huge difference appears.
They even claim that the non-vaccinated women were protected not by vaccines but by “herd immunity”.
Herd protection was observed for the unvaccinated women in the 1995-96 cohort, with a 63% reduction in the odds of CIN grade1 (11% to 85%), 67% reduction for CIN grade 2 (19% to 86%), and 100% (69% to 100%) reduction for CIN grade 3, compared with unvaccinated women in 1988-90.
So basically they assume that the unvaccinated young women were more protected. This suggests that these “scientists” have been manipulating the data to make the conclusions that big pharma wants. How could they assume that the “protection” of the unvaccinated was the result of the other girls being poisoned with HPV vaccines?
So the authors of the study were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the HPV vaccine.
They compared the “early” to the “later” unvaccinated group. Of course these groups aren’t the same, but never mind that! If hypothetically speaking in around 1994 guidelines were changed for contraindications for HPV vaccines, this could account for this...
Girls in the catch-up group (1991-94) are more likely to have been exposed to HPV before immunisation, whereas the routinely immunised group (1995-96) are considered more likely to be HPV naïve. We investigated herd protection by comparing the disease rates among unvaccinated women in the 1991-92, 1993-4, and 1995-96 cohorts with unvaccinated women in the 1989-90 cohort.
Basically, they looked at 12 and 13 year old girls and then examined them at age 20 to see if they had cervical cancer.
And to top it all, they didn’t even study any reduction in cancer rates, but a reduction in rate of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN). CIN is NOT cancer and usually curable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_intraepithelial_neoplasia
As it is reported that “only a small percentage” of CIN cases supposedly progress to cervical cancer it is doubtful how anybody could even prove this...
Whether this reported reduction in CIN is associated with a reduction of cervical cancer rates, or an increase, only time can tell.
