France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.

[izentrop]

[Janic]

Nice hollow speech as usual, quite that of BP and therefore of the vaccine lobbies. Each point evoked can be analyzed and turn out to be completely "false", that is to say that it only shows the tails side of the coin and it pretends to ignore that it also has a tails side or in any case to minimize it and therefore he seems to ignore, like the minister, the number of victims of vaccines of all kinds.
If measles had, in recent years, made few victims, leaving the illusion of being in the process of seeing its disappearance in the long run; reality is catching up with the facts. Indeed, if in our countries, with a high level of hygiene and fairly effective therapeutics, what Michel Cymes seems to neglect (and yet it is a fact widely known in all medical circles), it is that the diseases do not more limited to particular geographic areas because people moved very little, but now it's the opposite: from region to region, from country to country around the world [*]. However, the health and particularly the vaccination rules are not the same, already in the European community, but also worldwide, so there is no harmonization and where such vaccination will be imposed or recommended, it will not be the same. countries near or far. But with tourism, if only in France it is more than 80 million individuals, vaccinated or not, from all regions of the planet who mix with the vaccinated population or not, too. But do epidemics occur because of these contacts and mixtures? What nenni! So the vaccines are for nothing and if the vaccines are for nothing it is that the reason (s) are elsewhere.
Michel Cymes also seems to be angry with the figures and seems to ignore the official statistical curves and thus their interpretation.
So if 90 or 95% (he does not know too much!) Were vaccinated on a population of 67 million inhabitants, it would be between 6.7 and 3.35 millions of individuals who would not be for various reasons. But there is not 3 or 6 million immunocompromised that the rest of the population would protect by being vaccinated, or that would be "anti-vaccines" (which does not exist anywhere else than in his fantasies vaccines, because victims of vaccines were for before being the victims), to this must be added those populations coming from outside, not vaccinated according to our rules, then adults who do not get vaccinated either because, as a reminder, but Cymes must have big gaps in statistics, the obligations do not concern THAT CHILDREN, so this makes a large number of people who are no longer "protected" by their vaccines made during childhood. And yet, despite this, no epidemics either.
Finally, unfortunately, there are still victims vaccinated or not elsewhere because as a reminder among 3 last victims of measles, 2 were vaccinated, so do not blow a wind of panic on people because it There are and will always be victims of uncontrolled diseases. Tuberculosis makes hundreds of REAL victims and yet there is no vaccine obligation in the 11 vaccines in question, it is not without reason besides.
After Cymes gets vaccinated is his choice, but make vibrate the rope of guilt in the name of the nation, it is more information but marketing lobbiste self-justification to reassure himself and make his business.

[*] 4 billion passengers by air, plus road, railway, navigation, etc.

[Janic]

a little more about Cymes. Interviewed on FR5 concerning the abortion and the clause of conscience of the doctors.
25 '
... the conscience clause! All doctors have the right to exercise it from the moment they entrust the patient, for whatever reason, to another doctor who can do what he does not want to do, this is the clause of conscience in medicine ....there is no reason to forbid a doctor who does not want to practice (an abortion) to force him to do them. It's not based on anything, we are in a democracy ! One has the right to have a clause of conscience on the condition of applying it and that (the woman) can have access to (the abortion) because it has been entrusted to another confrere ....
https://www.france.tv/france-5/c-l-hebd ... hebdo.html

This dear, very expensive, Michel Cymes who works at two speeds by insisting on the importance of the clause of conscience of the doctor and thus of the patients, by invoking the fact we are in a democracyand which also positions itself in support of the obligation which, by nature, is a flouting of the same freedom of conscience of doctors and patients who are aware of the dangers and risks of this obligation.
So freedom of conscience or totalitarianism?

[Janic]

A little more! On the idea that the French population would be protected after vaccination has 90 / 95% hence this work of understanding necessary.
http://www.injep.fr/article/le-nombre-des-moins-de-18-ans-ne-recule-plus-en-france-metropolitaine-1183.html
The number of less than 18 years does not decline in France
Insee first n ° 1216, January 2009
According to INSEE, since the mid-nineties, the number of young people under the age of 18 has stabilized around 13,5 million in mainland France while their share in the population has been falling since 1967. So, minors represent 22% of the population metropolitan since 2004, against 25% in 1990 and 31% in the mid-sixties, following the baby boom.

https://www.ined.fr/fr/tout-savoir-popu ... tion-ages/
Population by age group
Population by age group at 1er January 2018
Year Total 1er January of 0 to 19 years of 20 to 59 years of 60 to 64 years 65 years or more
of which 75 years or older
2009 62 465 709 15 368 840 33 107 066 3 568 379 10 421 424 5 469 576
2010 62 765 235 15 406 592 33 023 612 3 795 165 10 539 866 5 576 099
2011 63 070 344 15 440 408 32 939 901 4 022 812 10 667 223 5 668 112
2012 63 375 971 15 457 656 32 910 610 4 034 993 10 972 712 5 751 652
2013 63 652 034 15 513 096 32 853 247 4 029 597 11 301 925 5 819 006
2014 64 027 784 15 588 668 32 791 461 3 998 545 11 649 110 5 892 974
2015 64 300 821 15 651 778 32 680 632 3 979 695 11 988 716 5 967 792
2016 (p) 64 558 472 15 683 011 32 616 478 3 949 891 12 309 092 5 991 256
2017 (p) 64 801 096 15 690 307 32 558 427 3 959 526 12 592 836 5 994 857
2018 (p) 65 018 096 15 687 985 32 491 805 3 959 701 12 878 605 6 034 927


So a little table corner calculation:
If only 22% of the child population is vaccinated at 90%, for example, this is only 20% of 67 millions of "protected" actually since the duration of this one is only an average estimate according to the individuals concerned. Assuming that the duration of protection is 25 years and therefore up to 43 years 20.800.000 individuals concerned is 31% more and therefore 55% of the population and not 90 / 95% of the population of the country. Since according to Public Health:

https://www.cairn.info/revue-sante-publ ... ge-329.htm
In France, the lack of systematic collection does not allow assessment of the CV in adult population and measure the impact of vaccination campaigns. Some population surveys provide some elements [2].

otherwise:

http://inpes.santepubliquefrance.fr/jp/ ... nthese.pdf
it is necessary to convince rather than to oblige ...
So the minister did not consult this organization any more, than she listened to the expert from the HAS who is giving the same speech. To oblige as to prohibit, has NEVER given good results as demonstrated the prohibition of the alcohol.

Furthermore:

In 4 Public Health page cited before:
The ROR in Great Britain
In the UK the problem is embodied in a campaign that established a causal link between the MMR vaccine and the risk of autism. We know today (in 2018) that Wakefield's article, which triggered this case, was a huge scam. This doctor was also sentenced and his article removed from The Lancet. From 1998, a frenzied press campaign has led to a significant drop in immunization coverage (-13.6%) Regions in which the press did not raise the subject have experienced only a shift of 2.4%. In other words the action of the media can be extremely harmful.

We know today (in 2018) that Wakefield's article, which triggered this case, was a huge scam.
Public Health therefore pretends to ignore that Wakefield was cleared after his trial in America and that it was the journalist who was convicted for lies. In the same way, his principal colleague was also released in the United Kingdom and reinstated. Is their information service so bad? or one way?
This doctor was also sentenced and his article removed from The Lancet.
He was not convicted by the law of the state, but by the order of the doctors of GB for non-compliance with internal rules or protocolas a petanque regulation regulates its participants, this does not put in doubt the skills and the results obtained. Still as misinformed or misinformed voluntarily?
From 1998, a frenzied press campaign has led to a significant drop in immunization coverage.
The media do their job by seizing what makes the news, informing its readers (much more often to support the vaccine dogma elsewhere)
When the term frenzied is to forget all the wild campaigns of vaccination . Would there be double standards in terms of information?

9 ° video of regenerates which makes an adjustment with some questions and answers on these different aspects of which certain errors actually said by Casasnovas and that it rectifies therefore, which does not change anything at the bottom.
It is surprising that this person has done an independent research work, yet ALREADY EXISTING in all the literature of the supposed anti-vaccines (which are only warnings about the dangers little put forward by the provaquins literature). Certainly his speech is based on these caveats since the speech opposite, official, can be viewed on the official provaccins websites as infovaccin. This provides a means of comparison between the favorable and the unfavorable to one technique rather than another and thus makes it possible to make one's choice of conscience as everyone can do in terms of politics, for example.
Indeed, a constraint can not prevent freedom of conscience and therefore of life choices.

[izentrop]

Congratulations to Lille who do not let themselves be manipulated by an antivax, homophobe http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/471294/artic ... eur-joyeux

[Janic]

Congratulations to Lille who do not let themselves be manipulated by an antivax, homophobe http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/471294/artic ... eur-happy

the city of Lille, not Lillois that is to say the population of Lille who was not questioned on the theme of the conference, was right to refuse that its logo be affixed to the poster if an authorization was not given. Yet this has nothing to do with the substance of the subject that is focused on the theme "Nutrition and prevention of diseases of civilization" to be held next 23 October at the municipal hall Alain-Colas, in Fives

led by Professor Henri Joyeux, a former oncologist from Montpellier who became a very controversial figure, especially for his anti-vaccination positions, criticized by his peers.

The journalist must have some difficulty following the news for 3 reasons:
1) Happy is not anti vaccines but anti-obligations indiscriminately as currently
2) it is not decried by SES peers, but by some orders of the doctors, not all and in fact not by all of his peers
3) His proposal of cancellation was canceled by the order of the doctors, himself.

The retiree is also often accused of homophobia,

a) Tax some qqc.
- Accuse someone of.
A charge, legally, is not evidence of and anyone can charge anyone without evidence, it is up to the law to decide whether or not the charge is justified or not. this is only defamation.

When a journalist laid charges against Wakefield the law cleared Wakefield and sentenced the journalist for lies

To briefly recall the case to those who have forgotten or never known it, in 1998 the Lancet published the cases of 12 children who were treated at the Royal Free Hospital of London for intestinal problems. The study then evoked a possible association between these problems, developmental delays, including some cases of autism, and the measles vaccine virus found in their intestines. The doctors noted that in 8 these children had gastrointestinal problems and autism symptoms that began shortly after MMR vaccination.
John Walker-Smith
The 13 co-authors of this Lancet publication were all members of the Royal Free Hospital Study Group on Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

In 2004, under pressure from UK health authorities, 10's authors have signed a retraction letter from the publication that would have shown that the vaccine was responsible for autism, which has never been said categorically. Then John Walker-Smith, a world-renowned gastroenterologist and pediatrician, Andrew Wakefield and Simon Murch were charged with medical fraud by the GMC (College of Physicians) and the lawsuits resulted in the removal of the Order of Walker-Smith and Wakefield, while Dr. Murch retained his status as a physician. Wakefield was then demonized by the media, the labs and many of the Boeotians delighted to report scandals benefiting the industry rather than investigating the implications of the story.
To sum it up: In July 2003, Lancet owner Crispin Davis becomes non-executive director of Glaxo SmithKline, manufacturer of the ROR.
The 27 February 2004, his brotherJudge Davis, who is in the hurry to report his kinship, withdraws legal aid from plaintiffs, while under false pretenses the Lancet rejects the publication of Andrew Wakefield, who is dragged in the mud by the BBC and the Sunday Times.
In July 2004, Crispin Davis, brother of the judge, is ennobled by the government of Tony Blair.
As for James Murdoch, son of multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch, which has a truly global media empire including The Sunday Times, and has recently been involved in a huge scandal, he was hired by Sir Crispin Davis to join the group GlaxoSmithKline. This example is very typical of the sequence of links of interest and serious facts found in the controversy on autism and vaccines and of which the French are unaware.
But fortunately there is sometimes justice on earth. The 7 March 2012, Pr. John Walker-Smith won his appeal on appeal against the College of Physicians of the United Kingdom who had unfairly accused and even defamed him as well as Dr. Andrew Wakefield, for the role their publication in the Lancet in 1998. This verdict succeeds 217 days of deliberation, and represents the longest case of trial during the 152 years of existence of the GMC.
This total victory allowed Walker-Smith to regain his medical status, although he retired to 2001 six years before the trial began. He is very happy with this victory because his family has experienced a real ordeal since 2004. "I will never forget the help I received and thank my supporters. I now hope to enjoy my retirement with my family. "
In his pitiless judgment of 70 pages, Sir John Mitting said that the charge against him did not stand up and he totally rejected the allegations of journalist Brian Deer and Liberal Democrat politician Evan Harris in the Sunday Times in 2004 because it was shown that they were without any foundation. He added that the conclusions were based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning in many ways and that the final conclusion was false. "
The name of Walker-Smith is thus washed of all suspicion. This conclusion is perfectly normal since the prosecution had no plaintiff, no harm had been done to the children, the parents had always supported the two doctors during their trial, on the contrary, the benefits they had received from them. care at Royal Free Hospital.

While John Walker-Smith had received donations to appeal the decision of the College of Physicians, his co-author Andrew Wakefield, an exile in the United States, could not do the same because he could not afford to appeal to the High Court. However, this judgment entirely relieves Dr. Wakefield of his misconduct and this year Dr. Wakefield, who is continuing his research in the United States, is suing pseudo-journalist Brian Deer, Dr. Fiona Godlee and the British Medical Journal for to have falsely accused him of "fraud" and to have multiplied their hateful attacks in order to destroy his career and his life.
As we have already announced, the trial will take place in Texas, where Wakefield currently lives. The court's decision on his colleague augurs well for the Deer complaint, on which all the GMC charges were based.
The parents in the CryShame group welcomed the announcement with great satisfaction after more than eight long years of waiting, and congratulated Professor John Walker-Smith. Cryshame is an association of parents who have seen their children fall back into autism in their second year and are wondering about this vaccine.
Mark Blaxill, father of an autistic girl, director of SafeMinds, author of many autism publications in various high-end medical journals, said, "The UK government needs to look at the corruption of the GMC that has severely harmed the reputations of honorable physicians. In addition, it is outrageous that Dr. Andrew Wakefield was defamed by government officials, vaccine manufacturers and medical authorities while the media accepted these accusations without any criticism. "
in turn, The Canary Party, an association created to defend the victims of medical accidents and environmental poisons, was greatly pleased with the victory of a doctor who fought a corrupt system taking the interests of children to heart victims. Jennifer Larson, president of Canary Party proclaimed, " It is high time we considered responsible parents as credible witnesses of the serious side reactions of vaccinations. [...] The work published by Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the Lancet was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist in the pay of Rupert Murdoch. Meanwhile, the works published in the Lancet were reproduced in numerous scientific publications and confirmed by thousands of parents around the world.
Ginger Taylor, executive director of Canary Party and mother of a child with autism, is adamant: "It is obvious that James Murdoch, Brian Deer and GlaxoSmithKline orchestrated the slanderous attack of Dr. Andrew Wakefield who accuses him of having manufactured medical data and used autistic children for his own glory. An honest judge has finally proved that the GMC hearings were a joke. Parents hope that journalists will finally publish honest reports on the assassination of doctors who prevent medical treatment of children injured by vaccines and on the role played by GSK and Merck in protecting their vaccine interests »
The lawsuit that Wakefield is now suing in the United States should also confirm the truth. The world will know that the vaccine industry knowingly lied by publishing slander about Dr. Wakefield, with the complicity of Brian Deer, who traveled extensively abroad and several TV appearances, where he treated this irreproachable doctor of "inveterate liar" and hid all the links of interests that united the accomplices.
And the truth will be all the more painful for the accusers as in the 2's Sunday Daily Mail Sunday, the journalist Sally Beck informed us that new American research confirms the findings of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and demonstrate that there could be a link between MMR vaccine and regressive autism.
now, a team from the School of Medicine at Wake Forest University in North Carolina is examining 275 children with regressive autism and intestinal diseases. On 82 children who have already been tested and tested, 70 is positive for the measles virus. Dr. Stephen Walker, research team director, said, "Based on the results we have obtained so far, it turns out that all strains are vaccine strains; no strain is related to the wild measles virus. This research proves that it is indeed the measles vaccine virus that has been discovered in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism. Thus, the study published in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield is indisputable.

Already in 2001 John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College Dublin, had reproduced the work of Dr Wakefield who confirm that the measles contamination of these children comes solely from MMR vaccine and that the Ministry of Health and some media wanted to discredit this research, under the pretext that no one reached the same conclusions as them. In truth, no one has really sought. In Denmark, as reported in the September 2004 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, there has been a significant number of autism diagnoses associated with the introduction of MMR. And right now, Dr. Wakefield's work has also been corroborated by many independent researchers in Japan, Ireland and other countries, highlighting the links between this vaccine and the accidents that followed.
However, the UK Department of Health, as well as the French Ministry of Health, insist on repeating the same story: "MMR remains the best form of protection against measles, mumps and rubella", leitmotiv taken in chorus by everyone.
There has rarely been as much lies about vaccines as in the "Wakefield case", little known to Frenchmen who refer only to the assertions of vaccine manufacturers, and I am surprised that they still find so many advocates while the whole world witnessed their actions during the "pandemic of indecency", as Professor Gentillini so aptly named it.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield had so many problems because he dared to challenge the medical mafia, helped by hundreds of autistic parents, and his opinion was too much against industry.
This verdict of the GMC has therefore favored a shameless liar for whom any means of pressure has been good, even the most dishonest, to the detriment of thousands of families of children with autism who have been fighting for years, with very limited means, against " Big Pharma "this often criminal industry that always gets away with considerable financial means.
As for those who claim that the vaccine has gone out of business, they also ignore or pretend to ignore that many other researchers have been able to link MMR to autism. This is happening in France, where our health authorities and many doctors persist in claiming that some charges against the MMR were based only on data manipulation and lies and that the "culprit" was punished and sentenced. But it is the accusers of Wakefield who are liars, most for lack of informationbut it remains unacceptable that some doctors are so ignorant and do not seek to discover truths cleverly hidden by corrupt powers and make them accomplices. The truth is out of the well, wait for it to spread to see how the accomplices of this scandal react. Hopefully the perpetrators will be very severely convicted.
This is all the more urgent as the CDC is expected to announce shortly that the prevalence of autism is increased to 1 on 88, with an incidence four times higher in boys, where it corresponds to 1 on 48. Let's not forget that autism was virtually unknown in 1930, and only touched 1 child on 10 000 in 1960.
Ginger Taylor takes up the questions that parents of autistic children have been asking for years: "How is it that we have gone from 1 to 10 000 children born 50 years ago, to 1 on 88 nowadays? Why do the CDCs refuse to consider this avalanche of autism as a public health emergency? While dozens of publications and countless congresses have proven that the root causes of autism are environmental and include vaccines and their substances, why do not the CDC tell parents about their children's risks? And Ginger Taylor protests against laboratories that have been protected from litigation with victims since autism exploded. As for Lisa Goes, of the same association, she believes that "The vaccine program - never tested in principle - is an immense uncontrolled experiment on a generation of children."
It is certain that the next trial brought by Dr. Wakefield will be difficult to retract if it is won and then, [*] will begin many other lawsuits against this scandal, one of the most revolting of current medicine.
sources: The Canary Party - 120 Birch Bluff Road - Tonka Bay, MN 55331
Ginger Taylor 855-722-5282 855-722-5282
or Media@CanaryParty.org
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/Andrew Wakefield_BMJ_petition.pdf
http://www.naturalnews.com/Andrew_Wakefield.html.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031211_Andre ... d_BMJ.html.
http://sylviesimonrevelations.over-blog ... 20786.html

[*] it will be well and truly won too!

or criticized for his positions on marriage for all, abortion or contraception

if all those with particular points of view were to be excluded from any conference opportunity, there would be no one left to do so.
As a reminder, Joyeux has been cleared on appeal, so follow!

https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/act ... cin_858168

[sen-no-sen]

Congratulations to Lille who do not let themselves be manipulated by an antivax, homophobe http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/471294/artic ... eur-joyeux

Professor Joyeux was apparently an opponent of gay marriage, does that make him a homophobe?
This kind of shortcut is part of the current propaganda:if you are not with us you are against us(dixit GW Bush during the second invasion of Iraq).

[Leo Maximus]

A mysterious evil ('Polio like') is striking children in the USA right now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 07f67c40dc

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/10/17 ... ids-in-nj/

https://www.popsci.com/mysterious-polio ... s-children

Blame the vaccination for some and not vaccination for others ...

[Janic]

maximus léo wrote:

Blame for vaccination for some and for no vaccination for others

this way, the answer is not easy because what makes it possible to question an effect whose cause can be different.
If you (us) consume a damaged product and that the same evening or the following day you are sick, you will attribute (perhaps wrongly) this one to what you have just eaten because it is not only a fever ( which may be due to anything else) but also because you have an upset stomach that tells you about the probable origin of your ailments.
Any pathology manifesting immediately after vaccination allows the same type of reaction: is there a real relationship of cause and effect, or is it just the result of chance (who has good back)?
In general only a thorough medical examination with analysis and all the tintoin can determine (but not always) a cause-and-effect relationship as for Escherichia Colli. But if the effect seems to be unrelated to the cause: how do you make sure of it anyway?
And it's not measured in the lab, but on the field! If immediately after a vaccine (or another product for that matter) a person, usually a child, is doing very badly, not just a minor but very serious side effect, it is the child's condition that shows: Either a momentary fragility, or a poor immune function, or indeed a poisoning whose link can easily be established by observation.
And that's nothing extraordinary! To obtain a marketing authorization, a vaccine, it is passed through 4 successive phases on humans: on volunteers "healthy", then on a small population (a few thousand anyway) and the authorization decision is based on observing the perceived results on these various people with reactions that differ from one individual to another. But nobody reacts in the same way to a product because we are unique individuals, child, adult, old man according to many different parameters. But the vaccines are standardized, one and the same product for everyone. So it is not surprising that the reactions are diverse and that the observations made by the labs have not observed or retained these cases.
Most of us can eat peanuts, but some people are allergic to them and become victims not because of the dose, but because of the presence, even the smallest, of the warning labels.
Fortunately for most people, some vaccines pass without damage, apparent in any case, and in others it can be catastrophic and cause other pathologies, for example by mutation.
Is it then because of the vaccine itself or does it only intervene as a triggering cause? (we talk about triggering causes due to influenza in the rate of influenza reported that usually only affects the elderly) Possible!
Hence precautionary measures (legal, by the way, but not practiced) and information BEFORE vaccinating a baby who does not react like an adult.

for polio-like, would not it be acute flaccid paralysis that looks like a twin sister to classic polio?

[Janic]

17th October, 2018
Gardasil, vaccine not only dangerous but also counter-productive: increase of the cases of cancers of the cervix in the countries + vaccinators
Analysis of published results of Gardasil on the frequency of cervical cancer. Letter to parliamentarians

12th October, 2018

Report for Men and Women of the National Representation.

G Delépine. Oncologist surgeon, graduate of medical statistics.

Declaration of interests: the author specifies that he has no link of interest, neither with a pharmaceutical laboratory, nor with any anti-vaccine association.

The French vaccination obligation has triggered a veritable religious war between those who believe in the always beneficent effect of vaccinations, and those who count only their complications. In order to dispassionate the debate, I will present here only proven, official and indisputable results extracted from the official registers and will abstain in this text of comments and hypotheses which could nevertheless allow to explain them better.

After 12 marketing of Gardasil and more than 200 million doses sold, the review of official cancer registries makes it possible to draw an initial objective assessment of anticancer effectiveness that is proving distressing.

Indeed, in all the countries that have implemented a vaccination program, we observe a significant and significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers, affecting preferentially the most vaccinated groups.

This frequency is expressed as gross incidence (number of new annual cases for 100 000 women) and standardized incidence (gross incidence reduced to a "standard" world population thus correcting the variations due to demographic differences from one period to another or from one country to another) to compare developments between countries.

In Australia, the first country to organize vaccination for girls (from 2007) and then for boys (2013), according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [1], the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination. This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appear when examining changes according to age groups. Women in the vaccinated age groups saw their risk increase sharply: 100% incidence increase for those from 15 to 19 years (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014), 113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) for those of 20 to 24 years vaccinated whereas they had between 13 and 17 years, and 33% (from 5.9 to 8 for the group 25-29 and 9.9 to 13.2 for those of 30-34) for those of 25 to 34 years less vaccinated, because only exposed to "catch-up" vaccinations. During the same period, older women (and therefore not vaccinated) saw their risk decrease: -17% for women from 55 to 59 years (from 9.7 to 8.1), -13% for those from 60 to 64ans (from 10.3 to 8.9), -23% for those from 75 to 79 years (de11.5 to 8. and even -31% for those from 80 to 84 years (from 14.5 to 10).

Great Britain organized vaccination for girls from 12 to 13 years with a catch-up for 14-18 years from 2008. Immunization promoters expected that cervical cancer rates in women aged 20 to 24 years would decrease from 2014 as vaccine cohorts entered their second decade. However, in 2016, national statistics have shown a sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in this age group all the more worrying as the standardized incidence in the general population tends to increase since vaccination from 9.4 in 2007 to 9.6 in 2015. In this country the analysis by age group reveals very contrasting developments [2]. The 20 to 24 year olds who were the preferred target of the vaccination campaign had their cancer incidence double from 2007 to 2015 (from 11 to 22) after an increase of 70% between 2012 and 2014 [3], then the women of 25 to 34 years (less vaccinated because only exposed to "catch-up" vaccinations) saw their risk increase by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014). Older, unvaccinated women saw their risk decrease (-13% for women aged 65 to 79 years and -10% for those over 80 years).

SAME PARADOXAL PHENOMENON IN SWEDEN

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006 and the vaccination program has been generalized to 2010 with vaccination coverage of teenage girls aged 12 aged almost 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all the girls from 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer has been steadily increasing since vaccination from 9.6 to 2006, 9.7 to 2009, 10.3 to 2012 and 11,49 to 2015. This increase is almost exclusively due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers in women from 25 to 49 years (11 in 2006 versus 17 in 2015) age group that includes all vaccinated patients. Cervical uterine increased by 19% in women from 20 to 29 years (from 6.69 to 8.01), 47% in those from 30 to 39 years (from 14.78 to 21.81) and 40% among those from 40 to 49 years (from 14.68 to 20.50).

Gardasil, vaccine not only dangerous but also counter-productive: increase of the cases of cancers of the cervix in the countries + vaccinators
In contrast, in Sweden as in Australia and in Great Britain, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer has been observed in women older than 50 years, a group that was not concerned by the vaccination program. . The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix has thus decreased between 2007 and 2015 6% for women aged 50 to 59 years (14.24 to 13.34), 4% for those 60 to 69 years (12.63 to 12.04,) 17% for 70 to 79 years (from 15.28 to 12.66) and 12% for those over 80 years (from 15.6 to 13.68).

In Norway, since vaccination, the cancer registry shows an increase in the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer from 12.2 to 2009, 13.2 to 2012 and 14.3 to 2015.

This increase is due almost exclusively to young women who group together all those who have been vaccinated as evidenced by the sharp decrease in the average age of occurrence of cervical cancer passed from 48 years in 2002 -2006 to 45 years in 2012- 2016.

Between 2007 and 2015 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased from 8% in women from 20 to 29 years (from 7.78 to 8.47), from 65% among those of 30 to 39 years (from 16.92 to 28.11) and 50% in those of 40 to 49 years (from 19.62 to 29.56).

During the same period a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer was observed in older women who were not involved in the vaccination program: -11% for women aged 55 to 64 years (15.47 to 13.7 ), -16% for those of 65 to 74 years (17.7 to 14.71) and -29% for those of 75 to 85 years (18.39 to 13). Results similar to those of Australia from Great Britain and Sweden.

In the USA, according to the Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2015 [4] the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer had decreased by 33% between 1989 and 2007 (from 10.7 to 6.67) prior to the marketing of Gardasil, but no longer decreases (+ 0.1) since vaccination. In this country where immunization coverage is lower than in previous countries (close to 60%), the same discrepancy is observed according to age groups but of lesser amplitude: women over 50 years, who have escaped Vaccinations benefit from a decrease in 5% of their risk (from 10.37 in 2007 to 9.87 in 2015), while the younger women, who group the vaccinated, saw their risk increase by 4% (5.24 in 2007 to 5.47 to 2015).

The evolution of these countries with high immunization coverage can be compared to the evolution observed in metropolitan France where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (about 15%) and can be considered for this reason as a control country. In France [5], the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased, from 15 in 1995 to 7,5 in 2007, 6,7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in 5 mortality from 1980 to 1,8 in 2012 and 1,7 in 2017.

Thus, in all countries that have achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, which appears 3 at 5 years after the start of the first year. vaccination campaign and which exclusively affects the age groups that have been the most vaccinated.

In these same countries, during the same period, older women, who have not been vaccinated, have seen their risk of cervical cancer continue to decline. Similarly, in metropolitan France, a country with low vaccination coverage, the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decline at a rate comparable to that of the pre-vaccination period.

This risk of facilitating cancer, added to the known side effects, makes this vaccination unjustified. Proponents of the vaccine argue for the supposed scarcity of "adverse effects", but can they also claim that the official goal of vaccination, reduce the incidence of cervical cancer is still likely to be achieved?

Proven sanitary disaster. Can we avoid a new scandal?

The increase in the risk of cervical cancer observed in all countries with high immunization coverage is already a health catastrophe that justifies urgently urgent additional studies by independent actors to explain this paradoxical result and to suspend immediately the recommendation of this vaccine.

In the absence of strong precautionary measures, this health catastrophe is likely to turn into a health scandal. After the scandals of the Vioxx, the Picks, the latest generation pills and the ethically reprehensible pantouflages of the director of the American CDC and a president of the EMA, the confidence of the population in the leaders of the health agencies and the ministers of health accused of being too sensitive to the speeches of pharmaceutical companies, is strongly shaken.

These are not evasive answers from official experts to the concerns of the families of young victims who can restore it [6] [7]. Nor the attitude of the American CDC which continues to promote the vaccine for girls and women. boys thus following the example of the captain of the Titanic neglecting the warnings and commanding "faster" This deafness to the proven results and calls for caution of independent experts is a major argument of anti-vaccines that rightly highlight the improbable rights that surrounded the [8] trials and then the hasty marketing [9] of Gardasil with no evidence of effectiveness on the disease it was supposed to treat that is causing the current disaster.

It is time for policies to be removed from experts with prevailing conflicts of interest. If you do not refuse the amendment to make Gardasil mandatory, what will you say to the families of girls like Sarah Tait, who died of cervical cancer after the vaccination that was going to avoid this ordeal, when they will learn that it is possible? -being the vaccination that was responsible? This responsibility will obviously be very difficult to assume.

Pending the results of in-depth studies essential to clarify the reasons for this proven failure of Gardasil, the precautionary principle requires no longer recommending or facilitating, let alone imposing this vaccine and stop funding advertising deceptive or even false in order to allow each citizen to freely assess the benefit / risk ratio of vaccination

"Those who do not know have a duty to learn"

"Those who have the privilege of knowledge have a duty to act" Albert Einstein

References:

[1] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. .

[2] Web content: Cancer Research UK, https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health ... incidence?, statistics Accessed 09] [2018].

[3] In Castanona et al. Is the recent increase in cervical cancer? 20-24 years in England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine Volume 107, February 2018, Pages 21-28

[4]https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2014/results_merged/sect_05_cervix_uteri.pdf#search=cervix%20cancer%20incidence

[5] Francim, HCL, www.Santé France, INCa. Projections of cancer incidence and mortality in metropolitan France in 2017 - Solid tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public Health France [updated 02 / 01 / 2018; consulted the 09 / 05 / 2018 https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr

[6] In Castanona et al. Is the recent increase in cervical cancer? 20-24 years in England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine Volume 107, February 2018, Pages 21-28

[7] Also very related to vaccine commercialization laboratories

[8] Examination according to a fast track procedure unjustified by the disease, use of substitute criteria whose relevance was not known, then definition a posteriori of the population chosen to judge the trial ...

[9] In 9 absolute record month at the time.

Source: Dr Nicole Delépine's website
See as well:
Gardasil: presentation of proven results on cervical cancer (presentation of Dr. G. Delépine to the deputies of the French Community 24 September 2018)
http://initiativecitoyenne.be/