BIASED STUDIES ASSERT HPV VACCINE PREVENTS CANCER

BIASED STUDIES ASSERT HPV VACCINE PREVENTS CANCER

Scientists are accusing the Cochrane Library of overstating the HPV vaccine’s safety and cancer-prevention benefits. Although Cochrane claimed the vaccine reduces cervical cancer by up to 80% and causes no serious harm, critics say the reviews relied largely on studies with serious or critical risk of bias. Many studies were too short to measure cancer, used precancerous lesions as proxies, or were vulnerable to “healthy user” bias. Critics also dispute claims of no serious adverse events, citing published studies and adverse-event databases. U.S. regulators are now reexamining HPV vaccine safety, effectiveness, and dosing.

U.S. regulators at the CDC are now reviewing HPV safety, effectiveness, and dosing. BUT they put Dr Levi in charge who as a member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said quote “We are going to very much stay away from the narratives or statements about safe and effective. We don’t believe these are appropriate or scientific language to talk about the issues related to vaccination.”

THE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL DEFINITION OF A VACCINE IS THAT IT MUST PREVENT THE DISEASE AND ITS TRANSMISSION – the mRNA COVID GENE INJECTION DOES NEITHER

THE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL DEFINITION OF A VACCINE IS THAT IT MUST PREVENT THE DISEASE AND ITS TRANSMISSION – the mRNA COVID GENE INJECTION DOES NEITHER

Because of President Trump’s Restoring Gold Standard Science Executive Order (binding within 30 days), I am convinced that he will adhere to the scientific and legal definition of a vaccine – as defined by the CDC, FDA, NIH, NIAID, NCI, U.S Patent Office, and Ninth Circuit Court – A VACCINE MUST PREVENT THE DISEASE AND PREVENT ITS TRANSMISSION – the mRNA gene therapy INJECTION DOES NEITHER – a salient fact arbitrarily and capriciously ignored by FDA’s Drs Prasad and Makary thus defying President Trump’s Executive Order, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, agencies and Institutes, and thereby putting 100-200 million Americans at risk.

Regardless of age, the COVID shots will not help anyone with other risk factors because it will not prevent them from getting COVID nor will it prevent them from transmitting COVID.  

The harm from these shots is real and the shots cannot be justified given the low fatality rate of COVID. This gene therapy must have different guidance and thresholds for market approval.

Since COVID-19 injections are not vaccines, the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, allowing compelled vaccination, is irrelevant.

Instead, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, which protects the right to refuse medical treatment, would apply. The federal government lacks a basis to mandate COVID-19 injections for employment or service, and the mandated childhood COVID-19 injections for school violates the right to refuse medical treatment recognized in Cruzan.

The CDC’s VACCINE PUSH FOR CHILDREN: A BETRAYAL OF SCIENCE AND TRUST

The CDC’s VACCINE PUSH FOR CHILDREN: A BETRAYAL OF SCIENCE AND TRUST

In a decision that has ignited fierce debate, Susan Monarez, PhD, Acting Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently endorsed the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recommendation to vaccinate children aged 5-11 against COVID-19 with the Pfizer-BioNTech pediatric vaccine. Announced in late 2021 and reinforced through ongoing CDC guidance, this move extends vaccine recommendations to over 28 million children nationwide, authorizing providers to begin administering the shots. At first glance, it might seem like a standard public health strategy to combat a global pandemic. Yet, a deeper dive reveals a troubling rift between this policy and the scientific evidence—a rift that Monarez and the ACIP appear to have overlooked, potentially undermining the very mission they are sworn to uphold.