Archive for the ‘Vaccines: General’ Category

Ebola: “We Could Have Stopped This”

8 September, 2014

Public health officials knew Ebola was coming. They know how to defeat it. But they’re blowing it anyway.

ld, you still just don’t get it. The Ebola epidemic that is raging across West Africa, killing more than half its victims, will not be conquered with principles of global solidarity and earnest appeals. It will not be stopped with dribbling funds, dozens of volunteer health workers, and barriers across national borders. And the current laboratory-confirmed tolls (3,944 cases, with 2,097 deaths) will soon rise exponentially.

To understand the scale of response the world must mount in order to stop Ebola’s march across Africa (and perhaps other continents), the world community needs to immediately consider the humanitarian efforts following the 2004 tsunami and its devastation of Aceh, Indonesia. The U.S. and Singaporean militaries launched their largest rescue missions in history: The United States alone put 12,600 military personnel to a rescue and recovery mission, including the deployment of nearly the entire Pacific fleet, 48 helicopters, and every Navy hospital ship in the region. The World Bank estimated that some $5 billion in direct aid was poured into the countries hard hit by the tsunami, and millions more were raised from private donors all over the world. And when the dust settled and reconstruction commenced, the affected countries still cried out for more.

Source: www.foreignpolicy.com

A seriously hard-hitting article by a very good journalist with a particular interest in infectious diseases.

And she’s right: Ebola was stopped, not once, but a number of times, as long as 38 years ago, in settings that are as or even more desperate in terms of poverty and lack of medics and medical resources.

The problem is, intervention did not occur soon enough this time, or on a scale sufficient to stem the increase in infections that inevitably followed introduction of the disease into urban settings.

It is a matter of amazement to me, that with the ever-present threat of pandemic influenza AND the recent emergence of MERS, that the WHO should have its "…miniscule epidemic-response department slashed to smithereens by three years of budget cuts".

Seriously: faced with diseases that can jump out of camels, or bats, or rats literally anywhere, WHO has to have budget cuts??

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Mucosal SIV Vaccines with Bacterial Adjuvants Prevent SIV Infection in Macaques

2 September, 2014

A new paradigm of mucosal vaccination against HIV infection has been investigated in the macaque model. A vaccine consisting of inactivated SIVmac239 particles together with a living bacterial adjuvant (either the Calmette & Guerin bacillus, lactobacillus plantarum or Lactobacillus rhamnosus) was administered to macaques via the vaginal or oral/intragastic route. In contrast to all established human and veterinary vaccines, these three vaccine regimens did not elicit SIV-specific antibodies nor cytotoxic T-lymphocytes but induced a previously unrecognized population of non-cytolytic MHCIb/E-restricted CD8+T regulatory cells that suppressed the activation of SIV positive CD4+ T-lymphocytes. SIV reverse transcription was thereby blocked in inactivated CD4+ T-cells; the initial burst of virus replication was prevented and the vaccinated macaques were protected from a challenge infection. Three to 14 months after intragastric immunization, 24 macaques were challenged intrarectally with a high dose of SIVmac239 or with the heterologous strain SIV B670 (both strains grown on macaques PBMC). Twenty-three of these animals were found to be protected for up to 48 months while all 24 control macaques became infected. This protective effect against SIV challenge together with the concomitant identification of a robust ex-vivo correlate of protection suggests a new approach for developing an HIV vaccine in humans. The induction of this new class of CD8+ T regulatory cells could also possibly be used therapeutically for suppressing HIV replication in infected patients and this novel tolerogenic vaccine paradigm may have potential applications for treating a wide range of immune disorders and is likely to may have profound implications across immunology generally.

 

Graphic of cells involved in HIV immunity from Russell Kightley Media

Source: journal.frontiersin.org

I have heard Jean-Marie Andrieu present this work – and I can understand why there is some skepticism surrounding it, because it is almost too good to be true.

Seriously: SUPPRESSING SIV-specific CD4 T-cell activation results in immunity to challenge infection??

However, and however – if this work is found to have been done well (and there is no evidence it was not), then this really could be a simple, reliable way of immunising people against HIV

Of course, monkeys aren’t people, and SIV is not HIV, so there MAY be a problem somewhere along the line in translating these results into humans – but what if there is not?

Then we may have a vaccine, and kudos to Jean-Marie Andrieu and co-workers to persevering along a difficult road to get their idea tested.

See on Scoop.itVirology News

20 years on, and here we are with Ebola, again

25 August, 2014

Browsing through my own web pages in an effort to clean up dead-end links, and cull tired material, I discovered that my link to an essay I wrote 19 years ago was still live – and as it referred to something written in and put up on our nascent Web server in 1994, means it has a 20-year anniversary round about now.

My essay is

The Student, the Web and the Ebola Connection

or:

Dr Jacobson, are you going to Kikwit?”

…and it is a record of events that resulted in 1994 from (a) an Honours student essay being written on “Emerging Viruses”, and (b) me playing around with the then-very-new WWW server that UCT has enabled – but didn’t tell anyone about, because they didn’t want anyone to use it until they had sorted out policies.  Oh, and (c) – the Kikwit Ebola outbreak in 1995.

I wrote in 1995:

“The whole phenomenon has been an object exercise in the power of the Web as a tool for the wide dissemination of information: we reached not only professional virologists, but also health-care professionals, and – most importantly – the lay public on a large scale”

And of course, this is even more true now – which is why, following the benign guidance of The Guru Cann, I maintain ViroBlogy and Virology News, and heartily recommend a Web presence to anyone who feels they need to disseminate information on topics of specialist and generalist interest to the world at large.

Of course, nearly all the links out of that essay are now dead – including to the original essay, that for a while there in 1995 was the ONLY detailed information on Ebola available on the Web.  So here is Alison Jacobson’s original essay, in full, revealed by going to my teaching material and checking out essays from 1997 and thereabouts:

EMERGING AND RE-EMERGING VIRUSES: AN ESSAY

Of course, I also maintained a daily update on the Kikwit outbreak, and then a couple of the next ones, before the Web caught up with me and it became easier to just trawl it for news via Google and its predecessors.  It still makes interesting reading, though, to go through some of what was posted from the disease frontlines back in the 1990s – and to remember that I had the TIME to do that kind of thing!

Where we are now

Well, here we are with what is the worst outbreak of Ebola in history, and here am I – again – trying to keep up with it.  This time, by the very excellent medium of the Web news aggregator Scoop.it, where I have established Virology News as a means of quickly and easily getting news out to the public.  Again, following the very excellent example of TGC, but also Chris Upton, who babied me along by letting me co-curate his Virology and Bioinformatics site.

Of course, there is a new angle to this outbreak – and that has been the compassionate use of a plant-made monoclonal antibody cocktail (ZMapp), hitherto only tested preclinically in a primate model.  Fortuitously, this all happened while I was finishing off a review on plant-made viral vaccines, so I reported on it – with references – here on ViroBlogy.

I was also able to report on it in my Plant Molecular Farming news site, with some authoritative statements from pioneers of the technology: Charles Arntzen from the Arizona Biodesign Institute sent through a link for an interview he did, and CNN covered it quite well too.  Charlie also sent through a set of links in an email that he was happy to share:

“The original story

There is a lot of interest from the press in “why tobacco” and “how does it work”?

The other focus is on the politics of scale up of the drug — it seems that criticism of the US is mounting in some sectors of Africa, and elsewhere.   I talked to a Spanish Language radio news station this morning, and the main questions related to “why is this a Secret Drug; are you trying to hide the secret from the world?”    “Is Reynolds tobacco trying to stop the supply of this drug to Africans?”    One guy asked if it was true that the Ebola Virus had been created in a test tube.

It seems that the press is largely to blame for using terms like Secret Drug.   It appears that they are also trying to mount political pressure to make a lot more of the drug to help Africans.   [This was] a nice job answering some of this….”

And at time of writing, the outbreak was still raging, had spread to Nigeria, and airlines were banning travel to half of West Africa – and alarmist tourist firms were advising people not to come to South and East Africa, as well.  The WHO has also said the impact is probably much greater than reported.

And Alison Jacobson is alive and well, and NOT working in virology any more.  Sadly!

5 Viruses That Are More Frightening Than Ebola

20 August, 2014

By Elizabeth Palermo, Staff Writer
Published: 08/15/2014 01:58 PM EDT on LiveScience
The Ebola virus has now killed more than 1,000 people in West Africa. Although the mortality rate of the most recent outbreak isn’t as high as in previous events, it’s still the case that most people who become infected with Ebola will not survive. (The mortality rate is about 60 percent for the current outbreak, compared with 90 percent in the past, according to the National Institutes of Health.)

1. Rabies

2. HIV

3. Influenza

4. Mosquito-borne viruses

5. Rotavirus

 

 

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com

Amen!  I have a fondness for Ebola simply because it is so spectacularly nasty, but it has killed fewer people in 40 years than flu or rotavirus does in 1.

Seriously: just like charismatic animals like elephants and tigers get all of the headlines when it comes to being endangered, rather than the humble tree frog(s), so do Ebola and Marburg get all of the attention when it comes to reportage on virus epidemics / pandemics.

See on Scoop.itVirology and Bioinformatics from Virology.ca

Ill prepared for an influenza pandemic

18 August, 2014

Over the last 500 years, there have been, on average, three severe influenza pandemics in each century. The most recent pandemic was declared in 2009. Yet despite much investment in public health and many improvements in vaccine production techniques and know-how, the availability of influenza vaccines during this event was far from adequate. Six months into the pandemic, 534 million doses were available, and after one year that number had risen to 1.3 billion — enough for only 8%and 25%, respectively, of the world population. We were lucky that the pandemic declared in 2009 turned out later to be mild and that just one shot of vaccine was sufficient to protect most people. This is not usually the case during a severe influenza pandemic.

 

Source: www.nature.com

"As countries continue to pre-book pandemic supply, it is more and more likely that the limited vaccines available during the first months of any pandemic during the next few years will be sold out almost completely"

And what does everyone think happened in South Africa during most of 2009 and 2010?

Well, they probably don’t – because not that many of them got sick.  But THERE WAS NO VACCINE for the general population until LATE 2010 – when the chances of another round of H1N1pdm 2009 had dissipated due to summer coming on.

And the vaccine that HAD come into the the country in 2010 got used for medical personnel, and – for the 2010 World Cup staff.

Seriously, we need to do better than this – and responding QUICKLY to news of a pandemic would be the ticket.

Using plants B-)

See on Scoop.itVirology News

Plant-made antibodies used as therapy for Ebola in humans: post-exposure prophylaxis goes green!

5 August, 2014
Ebola virus budding from an infected cell.  Courtesy of Russell Kightley Media

Ebola virus budding from an infected cell.
Courtesy of Russell Kightley Media

Yes, I know you fans of ViroBlogy like Ebola – and just coincidentally, I was desperately trying to finish a review* on “Plant-based vaccines against viruses” against a backdrop of an out-of-control Ebola epidemic in West Africa, when three different people emailed me different links to news of use of a plant-made monoclonal antibody cocktail.  I immediately included it in my review – and I am publishing an excerpt here, for informations’ sake.  Enjoy!

Plantibodies against Ebola

The production of anti-Ebola virus antibodies has recently been explored in plants: this could yet become an important part of the arsenal to prevent disease in healthcare workers, given that at the time of writing an uncontrolled Ebola haemorrhagic fever outbreak was still raging in West Africa, and the use of experimental solutions was being suggested (Senthilingam, 2014). For example, use of a high-yielding geminivirus-based transient expression system in N benthamiana that is particularly suited to simultaneous expression of several proteins allowed expression of a MAb (6DB) known to protect animals from Ebola virus infection, at levels of 0.5 g/kg biomass (Chen et al., 2011). The same group also used the same vector system (described in detail here (Rybicki and Martin, 2014)) in lettuce to produce potentially therapeutic MAbs against both Ebola and West Nile viruses (Lai et al., 2012).

A more comprehensive investigation was reported recently, of both plant production of Mabs and post-exposure prophylaxis of Ebola virus infection in rhesus macaques (Olinger et al., 2012). Three Ebola-specific mouse-human chimaeric MAbs (h-13F6, c13C6, and c6D8; the latter two both neutralising) were produced in whole N benthamiana plants via agroinfilration of magnICON TMV-derived viral vectors. A mixture of the three MAbs – called MB-003 – given as a single dose of 16.7 mg/kg per Mab 1 hour post-infection followed by doses on days 4 and 8, protected 3 of 3 macaques from lethal challenge with 1 000 pfu of Ebola virus. The researchers subsequently showed significant protection with MB-003 treatment given 24 or 48 hours post-infection, with four of six monkeys testing surviving, compared to none in two controls. All surviving animals treated with MB-003 experienced insignificant if any viraemia, and negligible clinical symptoms compared to the control animals. A significant finding was that the plant-produced MAbs were three times as potent as the CHO cell-produced equivalents – a clear case of plant production leading to “biobetters”. A follow-up of this work investigated efficacy of treatment with MB-003 after confirmation of infection in rhesus macaques, “according to a diagnostic protocol for U.S. Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization” (Pettitt et al., 2013). In this experiment 43% of treated animals survived, whereas all controls tested here and previously with the same challenge protocol died from the infection.

In news from just prior to submission of this article, a report quoted as coming from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases states that two US healthcare workers who contracted Ebola in Liberia were treated with a cocktail of anti-Ebola Mabs called ZMapp – described as a successor to MB-003 – developed by Mapp Pharmaceutical of San Diego, and manufactured by Kentucky BioProcessing (Langreth et al., 2014). Despite being given up to nine days post-infection in one case, it appears to have been effective (Wilson and Dellorto, 2014).

A novel application of the same technology was also used to produce an Ebola immune complex (EIC) in N benthamiana, consisting of the Ebola envelope glycoprotein GP1 fused to the C-terminus of the heavy chain of the humanised 6D8 MAb, which binds a linear epitope on GP1. Geminivirus vector-mediated co-expression of the GP1-HC fusion and the 6D8 light chain produced assembled immunoglobulin, which was purified by protein G affinity chromatography. The resultant molecules bound the complement factor C1q, indicating immune complex formation. Subcutaneous immunisation of mice with purified EIC elicited high level anti-GP1 antibody production, comparable to use of GP1 VLPs (Phoolcharoen et al., 2011). This is the first published account of an Ebola virus candidate vaccine to be produced in plants.

References

Chen, Q., He, J., Phoolcharoen, W., Mason, H.S., 2011. Geminiviral vectors based on bean yellow dwarf virus for production of vaccine antigens and monoclonal antibodies in plants. Human vaccines 7, 331-338.

Lai, H., He, J., Engle, M., Diamond, M.S., Chen, Q., 2012. Robust production of virus-like particles and monoclonal antibodies with geminiviral replicon vectors in lettuce. Plant biotechnology journal 10, 95-104.

Langreth, R., Chen, C., Nash, J., Lauerman, J., 2014. Ebola Drug Made From Tobacco Plant Saves U.S. Aid Workers. Bloomberg.com.

Olinger, G.G., Jr., Pettitt, J., Kim, D., Working, C., Bohorov, O., Bratcher, B., Hiatt, E., Hume, S.D., Johnson, A.K., Morton, J., Pauly, M., Whaley, K.J., Lear, C.M., Biggins, J.E., Scully, C., Hensley, L., Zeitlin, L., 2012. Delayed treatment of Ebola virus infection with plant-derived monoclonal antibodies provides protection in rhesus macaques. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 18030-18035.

Pettitt, J., Zeitlin, L., Kim do, H., Working, C., Johnson, J.C., Bohorov, O., Bratcher, B., Hiatt, E., Hume, S.D., Johnson, A.K., Morton, J., Pauly, M.H., Whaley, K.J., Ingram, M.F., Zovanyi, A., Heinrich, M., Piper, A., Zelko, J., Olinger, G.G., 2013. Therapeutic intervention of Ebola virus infection in rhesus macaques with the MB-003 monoclonal antibody cocktail. Science translational medicine 5, 199ra113.

Phoolcharoen, W., Bhoo, S.H., Lai, H., Ma, J., Arntzen, C.J., Chen, Q., Mason, H.S., 2011. Expression of an immunogenic Ebola immune complex in Nicotiana benthamiana. Plant biotechnology journal 9, 807-816.

Rybicki, E.P., Martin, D.P., 2014. Virus-Derived ssDNA Vectors for the Expression of Foreign Proteins in Plants. Current topics in microbiology and immunology 375, 19-45.

Senthilingam, M., 2014. Ebola outbreak: Is it time to test experimental vaccines? CNN.

Wilson, J., Dellorto, D., 2014. 9 questions about this new Ebola drug. CNN.

* = which, despite their having commissioned from me, the good folk at “Viruses” an unnamed journal decided “…may not have substantial differences with the reviews you published recently” – and rejected.  I shall have revenge.  Oh, yes…B-)

“Controversial scientist recreates H1N1 flu that killed 500K people” – NOT

2 July, 2014

Dr Yoshihiro Kawaoka, professor of virology at University of Wisconsin at Madison, has tweaked the 2009 strain of pandemic influenza to make it resistant the human immune system’s antibodies.

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

Trust the Dimwitted Mail to misstate what happened – which is that Yoshihiro Kawaoka selected the H1N1pdm 2009 flu virus in culture till he came up with antibody-binding escape mutants.

What he said:

‘Through selection of immune escape viruses in the laboratory under appropriate containment conditions, we were able to identify the key regions [that] would enable 2009 H1N1 viruses to escape immunity,’

Now recall that the H1N1pdm 2009 virus is NOT a particularly nasty variant; that it has NOT been proved the escape mutants will infect vaccinated people at all – and that all the work was done "a state-of-the-art laboratory at the Institute for Influenza Virus Research in Madison", so the odds that it will get out are VERY low.

But papers have been sold, and the scare is in.

HPV type 16 E7 protein bodies cause tumour regression in mice

26 May, 2014

See on Scoop.itIIDMM News

Background

Human papillomaviruses (HPV) are the causative agents of cervical cancer in women, which results in over 250 000 deaths per year. Presently there are two prophylactic vaccines on the market, protecting against the two most common high-risk HPV types 16 and 18. These vaccines remain very expensive and are not generally affordable in developing countries where they are needed most. Additionally, there remains a need to treat women that are already infected with HPV, and who have high-grade lesions or cervical cancer.

Methods

In this paper, we characterize the immunogenicity of a therapeutic vaccine that targets the E7 protein of the most prevalent high-risk HPV – type 16 – the gene which has previously been shown to be effective in DNA vaccine trials in mice. The synthetic shuffled HPV-16 E7 (16E7SH) has lost its transforming properties but retains all naturally-occurring CTL epitopes. This was genetically fused to Zera(R), a self-assembly domain of the maize gamma-zein able to induce the accumulation of recombinant proteins into protein bodies (PBs), within the endoplasmic reticulum in a number of expression systems.

Results

High-level expression of the HPV 16E7SH protein fused to Zera(R) in plants was achieved, and the protein bodies could be easily and cost-effectively purified. Immune responses comparable to the 16E7SH DNA vaccine were demonstrated in the murine model, with the protein vaccine successfully inducing a specific humoral as well as cell mediated immune response, and mediating tumour regression.

Conclusions

The fusion of 16E7SH to the Zera(R) peptide was found to enhance the immune responses, presumably by means of a more efficient antigen presentation via the protein bodies. Interestingly, simply mixing the free PBs and 16E7SH also enhanced immune responses, indicating an adjuvant activity for the Zera(R) PBs.

 

I thank Russell Kightley Media for use of the HPV/cervical cancer graphic

Ed Rybicki‘s insight:

I keep saying – you gotta go green…B-) And here we are, suiting action to words.  

Modestly, of course.  

Well done to Mark Whitehead and Thomas Oelschlager; thanks to Inga for sticking with a difficult ms – and thanks Era Biotech for the technology!

See on www.biomedcentral.com

Recombinant Bluetongue virus vaccines – or some, anyway

1 May, 2014
VIRUS-rota-200

General model of reo-like viruses. Copyright Russell Kightley Media

I picked up yesterday – via @MicrobeTweets’ Twitter feed – on a very useful list of papers in a “Virtual Special Issue” of Elsevier’s recent coverage of vaccines – for “World Immunization Week”. Great stuff, I thought to myself, as I browsed the list – and downloaded at least those that were Open Access, or which I can get via our Libraries’ IP range.

“Even better!”, I thought, as I saw a review entitled “Recombinant vaccines against bluetongue virus?”  A meaty, well-sourced review, I thought; good reading for me and my students / coworkers, and good meat for upcoming Introductions for papers yet to be written.  Indeed, it promised the following:

“The multiple outbreaks of BTV in Mediterranean Europe in the last two decades and the incursion of BTV-8 in Northern Europe in 2008 has re-stimulated the interest to develop improved vaccination strategies against BTV. In particular, safer, cross-reactive, more efficacious vaccines with differential diagnostic capability have been pursued by multiple BTV research groups and vaccine manufacturers. A wide variety of recombinant BTV vaccine prototypes have been investigated, ranging from baculovirus-expressed sub-unit vaccines to the use of live viral vectors. This article gives a brief overview of all these modern approaches to develop vaccines against BTV including some recent unpublished data.”

So, I parked the conveniently Open Access-ible window away on the side of my desktop, to be got back to with every expectation of delight.

Until I read it, that is: well-sourced it may be; excellent in its coverage, it is NOT.  In fact, apart from a brief discursion on subunit vaccines – concentrating almost exclusively on baculovirus / insect cell-produced proteins – it is almost exclusively concerned with live viral vectors for bluetongue proteins, and of poxviruses in particular.  Now, this is all very well, if that is what they work on – but to dismiss one of the potentially most exciting developments in recent Bluetongue vaccinology like this:

“VLPs of BTV have been also produced in plants recently using the cowpea mosaic virus and their use in a vaccination study produced no clinical manifestations in sheep after homologous challenge, although viremia was no [sic] evaluated (Thuenemann et al., 2013).”

- boggles the mind somewhat.  Really?  That’s all they have, compared to the screed immediately before it on baculovirus-produced antigens?  They get the expression system wrong – it is an Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transient expression system in Nicotiana benthamiana involving a Cowpea mosaic virus-derived enhanced translation vector – and neglect to mention that the VLPs produced are as good as anything produced in insect cells; will be FAR cheaper to produce, and WORKED AS WELL AS THE CONVENTIONAL ATTENUATED LIVE VIRUS VACCINE IN A CHALLENGE EXPERIMENT IN SHEEP.  True!

This is a big deal, folks, really: successful production of significant amounts of VLPs requiring simultaneous expression of 4 structural proteins of BTV-8 in plants AND their subsequent assembly, AND performing as well as the standard vaccine in an animal trial.  But no – not good enough for our review’s authors….

I must declare vested interests up front here: first, we work on plant-made recombinant Bluetongue vaccines; second, I and others in my group are co-authors of the paper whose lack of coverage I am aggrieved about.

But that’s not the point: what IS the point is that this review is a slipshod piece of work that damns our collective endeavour with faint praise, in community that might otherwise have been alerted to an alternative to the far-too-expensive-for-animal-use baculovirus expression technology.

Ah, well.  I suppose that’s what blogs are for B-)

Antivaxer HPV nonsense!

14 March, 2014

Fair Lady magazine just published a short but very useful article on HPV vaccines, with question-and-answer format commentary from a number of local experts on safety and such.

Then some loony takes them on in this piece.

My comment to that:

OK: this is a sadly under-informed and over-complicated response to a very good, simple article, with expert comments that are no way out of line with what is known to be the case about these vaccines.

Please allow me to correct a few things: in the first place, you say “Several ingredients in the two HPV vaccines are known to be a problem. One is the use of the microbe Saccharomyces cerevisiae, common yeast, as the medium in which the Gardasil antigen is developed. S. cerevisiae is known to trigger autoimmune response, as discussed recently in Yeast in Vaccines Tied to Autoimmune Diseases. Cervarix, though, was produced with a different medium, Trichoplusiani.”

Yeast is known to trigger autoimmune responses? Really? Then what about all those millions of people who have received Hepatitis B virus vaccine, also made in yeast? There is NO documented correlation with vaccination with yeast-made products and autoimmunity. NONE.

Then, Cervarix is “made in a different medium” – you obviously mean cell type, because Trichoplusia ni [note!] is a species of insect, from which the tissue-cultured cells used to make the HPV vaccine are derived. And? You have no problem with that? You shouldn’t.

Further: “The two vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are distinctly different in another way. Gardasil contains a single adjuvant… while Cervarix utilizes a combination …These differences, since they involve the hyper-activation of the immune system and a known trigger for autoimmune disorders in only one of the vaccines, suggest that a recent study’s finding that there are no adverse effects whatsoever in either vaccine beggar belief.”

So you have a problem with the finding that there are no adverse effects BECAUSE the adjuvant regime is different? Not because of the evidence? Sorry, that isn’t very good science!

And it gets better: “Most significantly, in every clinical trial evaluating safety for both Gardasil and Cervarix, the so-called placebo groups were given injections that included an active aluminum adjuvant!
Though this is a common practice in vaccine trials, it is obviously a blatant means of biasing the results.”

So – a perfectly acceptable placebo arm in a clinical trial, with adjuvant given so that any difference would not be due to just this, means the studies are meaningless? Really?? What about the UNvaccinated groups these were compared to? ALL vaccines are associated with SOME events – and I note that YOUR piece above contains the sentence “The high proportion of adverse events reported is mainly due to the design of the study, since women were requested to report all events occurring after the vaccination; however the majority of events were mild and transient”.

You then quote – at excruciating length – a number of articles purportedly supporting your case, that can be summarised as showing that “HPV vaccination does not have a therapeutic effect in young women with pre-existing human papillomavirus infection”.

Yes? And? The two licenced HPV vaccines are PROPHYLACTIC, and were never intended to be therapeutic! It is unfortunate that the vaccines do not in fact lessen ESTABLISHED infections; however, there is plentiful evidence that they PREVENT INFECTIONS FROM BEING ESTABLISHED.

You are being alarmist and spreading falsehoods from a very shaky evidential base. You should stop doing that, or risk being shown up as being an antivax crank.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 565 other followers