Garbage In, Garbage Out: Researchers Dress Down Cochrane for Its Flawed and Biased Review of HPV Vaccines
In May 2018, Cochrane, the research organization that bills itself as the “international gold standard for high quality, trusted information,” released a flattering review of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. The Cochrane review methodology involves pulling together data from clinical trials and reviewing the assembled evidence in what is supposed to be a standardized, systematic and neutral manner.
In June, we reported that Cochrane’s sources of funding—agencies and foundations that are unwilling to brook any questions about vaccine safety—raise reasonable doubts about Cochrane’s conflicts of interest and ability to remain independent from its funders’ agendas.
Now, researchers affiliated with one of Cochrane’s regional member centers (the Nordic Cochrane Centre) and with the Oxford-based Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) have come out with an exhaustive critique of Cochrane’s HPV review, published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
Not mincing their words, the authors state:
We believe that the Cochrane [HPV vaccine] review does not meet the standards for Cochrane reviews or the needs of the citizens or healthcare providers that consult Cochrane reviews to make ‘Informed decisions,’ which…is part of Cochrane’s motto. [emphasis added].
The Nordic Cochrane Centre and OCEBM authors dress down Cochrane’s review on seven counts:
- The Cochrane review missed nearly half of the eligible trials.
- No included trial in the Cochrane review used a placebo comparator.
- The included HPV vaccine trials used composite surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.
- The Cochrane review incompletely assessed serious and systemic adverse events.
- The Cochrane review did not assess HPV vaccine-related safety signals.
- The review ignored industry trial funding and other conflicts of interest.
- Cochrane’s public relations of the review were uncritical.
For example, using the Cochrane review’s own inclusion criteria, 42 clinical trials (involving 121,704 randomized participants) were eligible to be included in the HPV vaccine review, but the reviewers only included 26 trials (with 73,428 participants).
One of the studies that they “inappropriately excluded” was a trial of Gardasil-9—the newest HPV vaccine that includes nine types of HPV rather than the four or two in Gardasil and Cervarix—even though many countries are now shifting to Gardasil-9.
Because the nine-strain Gardasil-9 contains more than twice the amount of neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant as Gardasil, assessments of its safety are vital.
The BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine authors make several important points about biases in the vaccine manufacturers’ design of the original HPV vaccine trials—factors that the Cochrane reviewers overlooked or discounted.
One of the most significant observations is that “all 26 trials included in the Cochrane review used active comparators”—either various aluminum adjuvants or hepatitis vaccines—rather than genuine inert placebos.
The Nordic and OCEBM authors also note that the Cochrane reviewers “mistakenly used the term placebo to describe the active comparators,” that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers adjuvants to be “unreliable comparators,” and that the Cochrane reviewers’ only comment about this key clinical trial design flaw was one brief statement slipped in “after 7500 words about other issues.”
Nor did the Cochrane reviewers address the most important downside of using active comparators:
The use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms in the comparator groups and thereby masked harms caused by the HPV vaccines.
The Nordic and OCEBM authors make many other solid arguments about the Cochrane reviewers’ omissions and errors, including the reviewers’ inexplicable characterization of the higher death rate in the HPV group as “a chance occurrence.”
They also note that the Cochrane reviewers relied “on the HPV vaccine manufacturers’ own unverified assessments” in making the decision not to investigate potential safety signals in the clinical trial data.
Finally, the critique of the Cochrane HPV vaccine review notes the importance of gathering all relevant data and information (including unpublished data), rather than cherry-picking only some of the data.
This is a crucial observation in light of the recognized limitations of clinical trial journal publications:
The Cochrane authors ‘planned requesting data…to fill in gaps with available unpublished data,’ but ‘due to constraints in time and other resources’ they were unable to do so.
Considering that seven years passed from the publication of the Cochrane protocol in 2011 to the Cochrane review in 2018, lack of time seems a poor excuse for not trying to obtain unpublished trial documents and data.
More importantly, harms cannot be assessed reliably in published trial documents—especially in journal publications of industry-funded trials where even serious harms often are missing. [emphasis added]
For anyone interested in gaining an improved understanding of “behind-the-scenes” industry machinations and the biases of industry sock puppets, it is well worth taking the time to read the full critique of the Cochrane HPV vaccine review.
Read the full article at WorldMercuryProject.org.
More information about Gardasil
Young women whose lives were destroyed by the HPV vaccine.
California Nurse Gives Gardasil Vaccine to Own Daughter who Develops Leukemia and Dies
Infant Accidentally Vaccinated with Gardasil – Mother Blamed for Vaccine Injuries and Baby Medically Kidnapped
Iowa Girl Faces Death: Life Destroyed by Gardasil Vaccine
Gardasil Vaccine Given without Consent and Ruins Life of 14 Year Old Girl
After 3 Years of Suffering 19 Year Old Girl Dies from Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: The Decision We Will Always Regret
The Gardasil Vaccine After-Life: My Daughter is a Shadow of Her Former Self
Gardasil: An Experience no Child Should Have to Go Through
I Want my Daughter’s Life Back the Way it was Before Gardasil
Gardasil Vaccine: Destroyed and Abandoned
15-Year-Old Vaccinated by Force with Gardasil now Suffers from Paralysis and Pain
Recovering from my Gardasil Vaccine Nightmare
Gardasil: We Thought It Was The Right Choice
“HPV Vaccine Has Done This to My Child”
13 Year Old World Championship Karate Student Forced to Quit After Gardasil Vaccine
If I Could Turn Back Time, Korey Would not Have Received any Gardasil Shots
What Doctors Don’t Tell You: Our Gardasil Horror Story
Family Fights U.S. Government over Compensation for Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: When Will our Nightmare End?
HPV Vaccine Injuries: “I Cannot Begin to Describe What it is Like to Watch your Daughter Live in Such Agony”
Gardasil: Don’t Let Your Child Become “One Less”
The Gardasil Vaccine Changed Our Definition of “Normal”
Gardasil: I Should Have Researched First
“They’ve Been Robbed of Their Womanhood” – Local Milwaukee Media Covers Gardasil Vaccine Injuries
Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed
Gardasil: The Decision I will Always Regret
Gardasil Vaccine: One More Girl Dead
Gardasil: A Parent’s Worst Nightmare
After Gardasil: I Simply Want my Healthy Daughter Back
Gardasil: My Family Suffers with Me
Gardasil Changed my Health, my Life, and Family’s Lives Forever
Gardasil: Ashlie’s Near-Death Experience
Gardasil: My Daughter’s Worst Nightmare
My Personal Battle After the Gardasil Vaccine
Gardasil: The Worst Thing That Ever Happened to Me
A Ruined Life from Gardasil
HPV Vaccines: My Journey Through Gardasil Injuries
The Dark Side of Gardasil – A Nightmare that Became Real
Toddler Wrongly Injected with Gardasil Vaccine Develops Rare Form of Leukaemia
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
2 Comments