The Fox Owns the Henhouse—When Public Safety is Governed by Private Profit – Collective Evolution

This article was written by By José Solís, Ph.D. Posted here with permission. Reflect On:
Do our federal health regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies really but health before profit? Judging by the evidence, profit comes first.
“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
― Ray Bradbury, author of  Fahrenheit 451
A couple of days ago I stumbled upon a  radio interview  where the topic was safety and government oversight. I had tuned in at the exact moment when the interviewee said the following:
Well, my experience of 30 years in Washington, D.C. is the same Ronald Reagan had – you know, trust but verify. And when bad things happen, you need to verify if what he is saying is correct. I certainly question that there’s not a cozy relationship. All anyone has to do is look at the revolving door in Washington, D.C., and this agency and the industry to realize that there is a cozy relationship. Now the question is, is that cozy relationship having an adverse impact on the safety decisions being made?
The American public would be surprised, and maybe even concerned, if they knew how widespread the practice of self-regulation was.
Before I could ascertain what they were discussing in the interview, my mind began to race. Could it be clean water,  Round Up  pesticide lawsuits, climate change, vaccine safety, the opioid crisis? My question was quickly answered. The forum was an interview on  National Public Radio (NPR) with former  National Transportation Safety Board  (NTSB) chairman, James Hall, on the investigation into the recent tragedy of two  Boeing  737 MAX airline crashes.  Upon a rewind of the interview, I kept hearing references to “revolving doors” and “cozy relationships.”
David Greene, host of the show, asked,
But are you saying there are documents that Boeing has showing that they’re – that the company and, potentially the FAA, knew that there were some problems, some of the very problems that may have caused these accidents, and that they certified the aircraft anyway?
Mr. Hall responded,
…the process that we presently have is a self-certification process by the manufacturer of the safety of the aircraft… what has happened is that these decisions have been made in commissions and rulemakings dominated by the industry in Washington, D.C.
As reported by NPR, the  Federal Aviation Administration  (FAA) left the safety testing of the plane to the manufacturing company ( Boeing ) and that this practice could be found “a lot” in the federal government. James Goodwin of the  Center for Progressive Reform  stated, “The American public would be surprised, and maybe even concerned, if they knew how widespread the practice of self-regulation was.” I wondered what implications this example might carry for aviation safety, agriculture, vaccine safety, and generally for the future of government oversight and scientific inquiry.
Toward the end of the interview, Mr. Greene from NPR stated that recently he had asked FAA head, Dan Elwell, some of the same questions. In one answer, Mr. Elwell responded, “the FAA is an agency that is based on data, and they very much make their decisions, including keeping those planes in the air, based on data.” Dan Elwell, is a former Vice President of the  Aerospace Industries Association , representing the most powerful aerospace industry companies. There remain some very tough questions to be answered by the manufacturers of the airline industry, like  Boeing , and the “cozy relationship” it and other industry members enjoy with the government agencies responsible for regulating its operations and overseeing its compliance with public safety. But, let’s move on from that thread of public air safety and pause for an overview of the opioid crisis facing the United States.
Public air safety to the opioid crisis
Earlier in March, the 13 th  to be precise, I saved a copy of the transcript from an interview between David Greene and Brian Mann, an NPR associate, who has been following developments in some of the lawsuits around the nation’s opioid crisis. In its introduction to the interview  NPR reported ,
The opioid epidemic claimed 70,000 lives in 2017. To put that in perspective, that is more than the number of people who died annually at the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. And the pharmaceutical industry is going to spend much of this year answering some hard questions. Many blame pharma for our country’s opioid crisis. And this year, big drug makers, as well as pharmacy chains, are facing more than 1,500 lawsuits filed by state and local governments. Billions of dollars are at stake, and so are reputations. Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, CVS – those are just some of the companies targeted in these lawsuits.
The following are  excerpts from the interview :
Greene: I mean that there are internal company documents that are being made public, and some of them have been controversial, you’ve been finding.
Mann: Purdue executives, for example, can be seen secretly acknowledging that their prescription opioids were far more addictive and dangerous than they were telling doctors. At the same time, company directives kept pushing sales, pushing the salespeople incredibly hard to get more opioids into the hands of vulnerable people, including seniors and military veterans….We’ve also learned that Purdue Pharma executives developed a secret plan they called Project Tango, which they allegedly hoped might help them profit again from the growing wave of opioid addiction. The idea here was to sell addiction treatment services to some of the same people addicted to products like their own OxyContin… Which means for more than a decade, no one in the wider public knew how serious the allegations against Purdue and these other drug companies were. But this time, states and cities suing these companies seem eager to sort of pull back the curtain… the drug industry has fought these disclosures at every turn. They describe the information in these documents as proprietary, basically arguing its corporate property. But as more and more information comes out, it’s making people angry.
On a related topic, Mr. Mann expressed:
But according to the drug company’s own documents, firms including Johnson & Johnson pushed unscientific theories about drug addiction. They did so allegedly to convince doctors to prescribe even more opioids after patients showed signs of dependency. David Armstrong, the reporter with ProPublica, says this kind of disclosure is making it harder for the industry to protect its image.
… ‘tobacco science;’ i.e.  Science  done on behalf of an interest defending its profits, like the science conducted by a cigarette company showing that cigarettes are safe.
Government agency collusion
Government agency collusion with different industries, to me, represented nothing short of corruption. I was reminded of the tobacco industry and how the Phillip Morris tobacco company organized its  Boca Raton Action Plan  in 1988, in an effort to “diffuse and re-orient” the voices and initiatives of those fighting tobacco in favor of public health. Also, how the  World Health Organization  (WHO) itself colluded with legal experts and doctors in the United States in favor of the tobacco industry  and against public health. From this fiasco was coined the expression “tobacco science;” i.e. “Science” done on behalf of an interest defending its profits, like the science conducted by a cigarette company showing that cigarettes are safe.
And speaking of the WHO, I was also reminded of the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) “pandemic.” In the spring of 2010, the  Council of Europe  was  investigating the role of the WHO in declaring the H1N1 pandemic . Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist who at one time was head of the  Health Committee of the Council of Europe , expressed concerns that the contracts for the vaccine were mostly confidential arrangements between the WHO, individual member states and the companies producing the vaccine. In fact, numerous countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, entered into contracts with the vaccine manufacturing companies prior to the WHO’s declaration of an H1N1 pandemic. The contracts obligated these countries to purchase swine flu vaccinations under one condition: that the WHO issue a pandemic flu alert.
…undermined by the transformation of the relationship between scientists at universities, private industries with their scientists and the ‘cozy relationships’ that exist between the two
Transformed relationships
In his  farewell speech to the citizenry , U. S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower poignantly expressed his concern regarding the future of science and its partnership with government, and government with industry, when he said:
…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
I kept wondering about the revolving doors, the collusion, industrial interests, and the science that was supposed to provide a foundation upon which to rest our confidence, our trust. How did we get here? The short answer, and quite possibly the simplest, might be the privatization of knowledge, or as some have called it, the “selling of science.” Or, maybe it’s the troubled matrimony of science and technology, where an applied and economic gain becomes the foundational rationale for present and future scientific endeavor. Such an environment raises serious questions as to the future of knowledge, the advancement of the sciences, and potential impacts on our economic, social, and public health.
Aristotle reminded us that “knowledge is virtue.” It has a value unto itself; a purpose that serves no particular master other than the rational development of inquiry and respective methods for the development of that knowledge. Here resided the principles of the classic universities, places where questions were explored, answered, and questioned again. This was the meaning of science – never settled – but forever moving toward a better, safer, healthier, and more advanced state of human affairs. But what happens to science when the scientist is tied to private industry, where the principle objective of private industry is defined by its stockholders interests, investments, and profits, where the same industry that manufactures the product for profit is also the industry responsible for generating the science determining the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of its product?
In his book,  Science in the Private Interest , Dr. Sheldon Krimsky writes,
The responsibility of the scientist begins with discovery and ends with commercial applications. Universities exist mainly to provide labor for industry and to help industry turn knowledge into technology; technology into productivity; and productivity into profits .
What Dr. Krimsky refers to as “public interest science as a model of knowledge for human welfare,” has been redefined, or more crudely speaking, undermined by the transformation of the relationship between scientists at universities, private industries with their scientists, and the “cozy relationships” that exist between the two. In the book  To Profit or Not To Profit , authors Walter Powell and Jason Owens-Smith state,
The changes underway at universities are the result of multiple forces: a transformation in of the nature policymakers and key constituents. These trends are so potent that there is little chance for reversing them-nor necessarily a rationale for doing so.
These changes have been referred to as characteristic of the scientist as entrepreneur, or parts of what Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie explore in their book  Academic Capitalism . In it, they write:
We would expect that faculty as professionals participating in academic capitalism would begin to move away from values such as altruism and public service, toward market values.
Under he current science-to-market model, government oversight of any number of products, from airplanes, to drugs, to tobacco, and more, continues to demonstrate a complacency that favors market-driven profits over public safety.
The transformation of science and scientists
The transformation of science and scientists that are lured into and seek financial support from private industry for any number of research-to-market projects has become an all too familiar scenario with potentially devastating consequences.
Most recently, the parents of one of the victims of the Egyptian  Boeing  airline,  filed suit  against  Boeing  and the Rosemont airline parts manufacturing industry. Reuters report states that:
Thursday’s complaint accuses Boeing of putting “profits over safety” and said the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration must also be held accountable for certifying the 737 MAX.
However,  reports Reuters : “Legal experts say these cases face high hurdles since government officials and agencies are generally immune from civil lawsuits .”
Under the current science-to-market model, government oversight of any number of products, from airplanes, to drugs, to tobacco, and more, continues to demonstrate a complacency that favors market-driven profits over public safety. This reality should alarm anyone and all. What if, as some of the legal experts above claim, a U.S. citizen has no right to hold industry responsible for assurances of safety because those industries are tied to government agencies, or because those agencies derive profits or “benefits” from the “cozy relationships?” If you believe that the FAA and the FDA need to come clean regarding the “revolving door” and “cozy relationships” that experts have indicated exist between both agencies and private industry, why would we not consider the same for the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (CDC)?
Arguably, a profoundly vivid parallel is seen in the policies and practices of mandatory vaccination and informed consent. Over the many years studying vaccination theory and practice, I discovered a disturbing similar pattern – the “revolving door” between the CDC and private pharmaceutical manufacturing companies, the conflicts of interest where different committees and their members are given waivers protecting conflicts of interest, payoffs to doctors for administering vaccines, fast-tracking of vaccines and safety studies with no use of double-blind placebo studies, and the very “cozy relationship” between members of Congress, “big pharma,” the CDC and the  Food and Drug Administration  (FDA).
If you believe that the FAA and the FDA need to come clean regarding the “revolving door” and “cozy relationships” that experts have indicated exists between both agencies and private industry, why would we not consider the same for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?
In 1986, Congress passed the  National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act ( NCVIA ) . For years families had been suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries their children suffered at the hands of vaccines. Threatening to discontinue vaccine production, the vaccine manufacturers asked for government assurances that their products would go forward unhindered. The 1986 law took all liability away from the manufacturers of vaccines, making it impossible to sue the industry. The same law stipulated that every two years the  Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS) would submit a report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety. It was during this time that the numbers and doses of vaccines began a dramatic increase.
In 2017 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree of the  Informed Consent Action Network  (ICAN)  filed a suit before the U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New York . On July 27, 2018, HHS admitted the following before the court:
The [Department]’s searches for records did not locate any records responsive to your request. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Immediate Office of the Secretary (IOS) conducted a thorough search of its document tracking systems. The department also conducted a comprehensive review of all relevant indexes of HHS secretarial correspondence records maintained at Federal record centers that remain in the custody of HHS. These searches did not locate records responsive to your request, or indications that records responsive to your request and in the custody of HHS are located at Federal record centers.
Today in the United States, political, medical, and mass media leadership, infused by the interests of vaccine manufacturers, are currently engaged in a massive campaign to silence dialogue, ban books and websites, avoid debates, and impose that vaccines become mandatory for all with no respect to informed consent, religious beliefs, medical conditions, or personal conscience. Writing on a recent measles outbreak in Rockland County, New York,  Celeste McGovern  remarks,
People, like those in Rockland County, don’t avoid vaccines because they are misled by “fake” news and Facebook – but because of the real stories of corporate greed and political cover-up and vaccine-injured children that are shared on those platforms. The data bears them out. There are millions of them.
How is it possible that censorship becomes a principal upon which public policy and social interaction are defined in a democracy? Will the violation of the right to informed consent become the new paradigm applied to air travel, medications, vaccination, food and more?
The very thought that censorship would become an instrument of intimidation, humiliation, a threat, and a practice violating human rights, should make anyone shiver. But maybe more importantly, the unbridled and crass censorship we are witnessing today on the topic of mandatory vaccination, its effectiveness and safety, should leave us asking: How is it possible that censorship becomes a principal upon which public policy and social interaction are defined in a democracy? Will the violation of the right to informed consent become the new paradigm applied to air travel, medications, vaccination, food, and more?
Personally, and professionally, I see nothing edifying and positive coming from the censorship of those that question.  Boeing  has explaining to do, as does the FAA. Furthermore,  Johnson & Johnson ,  Purdue ,  CVS  and the FDA, owe the people an explanation. Likewise, the HHS, CDC, and pharma owe the people many explanations about the safety of vaccines.
Sign up  for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your  support  is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
The demand for Collective Evolution’s content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
In Brief The Facts:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr recently appeared in Connecticut after an effort to Mandate multiple vaccines has been initiated. In his appearance, he claimed that the HPV vaccine may and does cause cancer, among other things. Reflect On:
With so much science, and evidence of corruption and fraud when it comes to vaccine safety, why are there efforts to make certain vaccines mandatory when it’s clear that they’re not really safe as they are marketed to be. What’s going on?
Is the HPV vaccine safe? In an age where legislators are pushing for mandatory vaccinations, the push to take away the freedom of choice has more people looking at information that the mainstream continues to ignore. The truth is, vaccines are not as safe and effective as they’re marketed to be. This is evident by the fact that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act as now paid approximately $4 billion dollars to vaccine injured children, and that only accounts for 1 percent of vaccine injured children as the majority of injuries go completely unreported.
A great example to use would be the MMR vaccine. On its own, it has caused approximately 100,000 adverse events, 2000 disabilities, 7000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths. ( source) And again, according to VAERS , only 1 percent of injuries are accounted for. Meanwhile, measles does not kill. The chances of dying of measles are akin to getting hit by lighting, the odds of dying from measles are 0.01 percent! ( source ) And those who contract measles receive natural immunity that lasts a lifetime, unlike the vaccine-induced immunity that wanes over time.
Note: Listen to our latest podcast deconstructing the vaccine subject in detail here.
Looking Into The Human Papillomavirus Vaccine
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, it seems to get worse. There are a multiple of problems with the HPV vaccine, and one of them is that it’s loaded with aluminum. Why is this a problem that needs to be addressed? Well, because aluminum, among several other vaccine ingredients, have simply been used in vaccines as presumed to be safe without any actual safety testing. Studies that have examined aluminum raise great cause for concern. One from 2015 points out:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph notes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term. ( source )
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Here’s a great clip of doctor Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia explaining how injected aluminum does not exit the body. He, alongside Sneha K.S. Sheth andYongling Li, published a study in 2017 looking at animal models. They found that almost “100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum (as in vaccine adjuvants) is absorbed into the systemic circulation and travels to different sites in the body such as the brain, joints and spleen where it accumulates and is retained for years post-vaccination.” ( source )
Gardasil Victims
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, countless numbers of girls, and boys, have had severe adverse reactions which have resulted in disability and/or death.  The latest example to make noise regarding HPV vaccine injury is Jennifer Robi, a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation. You can read more about that story  here .
Another one we’ve written about is Colton Barrett, who took his own life after being unable to cope with his Gardasil vaccine injuries. You can read more about that and watch an interview with him here .  Christopher Bunch is also another teenager who recently died as a result of the HPV vaccine, you can read more about that here .
The list of deaths and injuries as a result of the Gardasil Vaccine is a long one. In America, the chances of dying from cervical cancer is 2.3 out of 100,000. The chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 2.3 out of 100. That means that your chances of getting an autoimmune disease from this vaccine are 1000 time greater than getting cervical cancer, as Kennedy points out in his lecture below.
Reports to the World Health Organization’s global adverse drug reactions database—conservatively estimated to represent 10% of actual reactions—show over 305,000 adverse reactions where the HPV vaccine “is believed to have been the cause,” including 445 deaths (23 of which were sudden) and over 1,000 cancerous tumors (including 168 cervical cancers), among other serious reactions ( BMJ   letter , December 2017).
“A healthy 16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Gaining Credibility
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently made an appearance in Hartford, Connecticut at the “Science of Vaccines forum” in response to proposed mandatory vaccination initiatives in the state. He had a previously planned vaccination discussion with three Yale doctors cancelled on him, and the doctors have since refused to return emails asking for statements as to why they didn’t attend.
He made some bold statements, and he used evidence and science to back them up. After using Merck’s own HPV pre-licensure safety study documents showing the manipulation of data to hide increases in severe adverse vaccine reactions, he stated:
I’m saying this not on belief but because it’s true. And I’m saying it that way so that Merck will sue me if I’m saying something wrong, and they won’t.”
In the talk, he goes on to state that if the truth was known, “nobody in the world would ever, who has any concern for a little girl, would ever give them this vaccine.”
After showing a slide of evidence illustrating how people who have already been exposed to HPV and receive the vaccine have a much higher percentage of actually getting cancer, which is a fact, the vaccine is much less effective to people who have already been exposed to HPV (many of whom are exposed in the birth canal). He states, “this vaccine gives you cancer, if you’ve already been exposed.”
You can view the full lecture below where some of the above quotes come from. Another set of quotes come from the same conference, but is not filmed below. You can view that part of the lecture in this video posted to Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defence Facebook Page.
Pap Smears VS Vaccines
Kennedy provides legitimate sources in his lecture, and there are many others to back up his claims that this vaccine could actually be contributing to cervical cancer.
As a result of the introduction of pap smear tests, the percentage of incidences of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from 13.5 to 9.4 in Great Britain, 13.5 to 7 in Australia, 11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden, 15.1 to 11 in Norway,  10.7 to 6.67 in the USA, and 11 to 7.1 in France, in less than 20 years. Out of all countries across the globe that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007. (1,2,3,4,5)  
The HPV Vaccine has reversed this trend.
In 2017, Sweden’s Center for Cervical Cancer prevention reported that incidences of invasive cervical cancer are climbing in nearly all countries. Over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, for example, there was a steep 20 percent increase. ( source ) Note that in Sweden, the Gardasil vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, thanks to a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated. ( source )
In France, incidences of cervical cancer have increased steadily since vaccinations started, from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012, and 11.49 in 2015. ( source )
On April 30th of 2018,  a study published  in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics suggested that the HPV vaccine may actually be causing cervical cancer in some women rather than preventing it. According to the editors of the journal, “the issues raised by it [the study] are important and discussion on it is in the public interest.“
That last point there is so important: “discussion on it is in the public interest.” Any type of discussion regarding heavily marketed medication is extremely important, and it’s highly concerning when there is a large attempt to ridicule or prevent such a discussion from taking place.
The study was retracted, but remains accessible on the journal’s site.
As editors, we are wary of the extreme ideological divide that views discussions on vaccines as either “pro” or “anti”. In low and middle-income countries like India, where early HPV infection and incidence of carcinoma cervix are relatively high, scientific discussion and resolution of issues concerning the HPV vaccine is critical, for women receiving it, and for policy making on its introduction in the universal immunisation programme. We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies. ( source )
Gardasil Failure Likened To The Titanic
Here’s another great quote from Dr. Nicole Delepine, a surgeon and Oncologist from France.
It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This  Titanic demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.
Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid ,  if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines. ( source )
Gardasil’s prevention failure has essentially erased the perceived benefits of the Pap smear, which is accelerating the onset of cervical cancer, according to Delepine. She points out how, in all of the countries who have implemented large HPV vaccination programs, there’s been a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers within the most vaccinated populations. She makes an important points and emphasize how non-vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with a Pap smear:
During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly: less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).
From their inception, the two HPV vaccines (Merck’s Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix) have been  aggressively marketed , with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly through the use of  inappropriate placebos . It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus’ fraudulent   evidence. Recent letters published in the  British Medical Journal  (BMJ) have brought forward some stark numbers that illustrate the vaccine’s appalling record: A seriously adverse event rate of 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated (14 per 10,000) that far exceeds the risk of dying from cervical cancer which is 0 .23 per 10,000   ( BMJ   letter , May 2018).
This quote from RFK Jr. sums it all up:
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, is it really necessary? There is a very small percentage of women who will contract an HPV infection throughout their lifetime, and 95 percent of these women who do get an HPV infection will clear it by themselves within a couple of years, you don’t even have to detect it. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately half of those women will develop pre-cancerous lesions, which could then take decades to develop into cancerous lesions. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine only provides 5-10 years of immunity, and girls (and boys) are injected with it at approximately 12 years old. How likely is it that a child will develop an HPV infection between the ages of 12 and 17?
The Takeaway
The HPV Vaccine is one of the clearest indicators that we are dealing with a health care industry that values profit over human health. Even with signs of upward trends in cancer and other vaccine damage, the industry continues unabated to promote it’s product. This is why we need to spread the truth on these matters, and use this information to spur our collective awakening to what is really going on in the world.
We recently did a very detailed segment for The Collective Evolution Show where we deconstructed the entire vaccine subject in great detail. You can listen to our latest podcast episode containing that here.
Sources Used Not Highlighted Within the Article:
1]  Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].
[2]  AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.
[3]  NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018
[4]  Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005
The demand for Collective Evolution’s content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!