Do various strains of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) really cause cervical cancer? What are the REAL risks of the vaccine? Are parents/women being told the truth? …

By Sarah Kalell 

In the FDA News dated 31 March 2003 1 (before the introduction of the HPV vaccines), the FDA stated that:

“Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health. But a few women develop a persistent infection that can eventually lead to pre-cancerous changes in the cervix”.

Subscribe to our Free Daily All4Women Newsletter to enter


“50 000,000 women get PAP tests annually in the US. According to the American Cancer Society, in 2003, 12,200 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 4,100 will die from the disease. With proper screening, cervical cancer is avoidable and, if caught early, curable” [my emphasis]

It is significant that before the introduction of the HPV vaccine, cervical cancer (with proper screening) “is avoidable and, if caught early, curable”.

The PAP test has revolutionised women’s health and drastically reduced the death rate from cervical cancer

Since approximately 1952, the PAP test has revolutionised women’s health and drastically reduced the death rate from cervical cancer2. Whilst the screening procedure has undergone many changes to avoid over-diagnosis and excessive treatment, it is now firmly accepted that “the drastic decrease in mortality from cervical cancer in Western countries has been attributed to the generalization of screening for this malignancy”3. It is also accepted that “cervical lesions are accessible, fragile, and relatively easy to eliminate, a rare combination.4”

Although the common perception is that several strains of the HPV virus cause cervical cancer, it is also mostly accepted that other factors need to be present in order for cancer to develop, e.g. poor nutrition, smoking or use of the contraceptive pill5. But there is a further question mark over whether HPV is actually one of those causative factors6. The biggest question that conventional medicine has not answered is this:

“Why are cervical carcinomas individually very distinct from each other in terms of malignancy, drug-resistance, cell histology, as originally described by Papanicolaou et al. in Science in 1952, although they are presumably caused by the same viral proteins?”7

As explained by Sanevax, “all cervical cancer cells investigated during the course of this study contained new abnormal karyotypes. The clonality (genetic makeup) of these new abnormal karyotypes indicates the cervical cancers originated with these karyotypes – NOT from a virus”.8 In other words, the cancer most likely began with abnormal human cells and not from the HPV virus.

If the findings in the McCormack paper9 are true, then the HPV vaccine – even IF proved safe – is highly unlikely to prevent cervical cancer.

If the findings in the McCormack paper are true, then the HPV vaccine – even IF proved safe – is highly unlikely to prevent cervical cancer

It would seem that given the findings of a study in the Delta Region in Egypt, where it was found that the HPV virus was NOT the main cause of pre-invasive or invasive cervical cancer10, that this may add weight to the McCormack hypothesis.

30% of cervical cancer cases do not have a HPV virus present

Furthermore, approximately 30% of cervical cancers do not have an HPV virus present11 so therefore the current hypothesis that HPV causes cervical cancer is flawed. When only 1 in 10,000 HPV-infected women in developed countries develop cervical cancer it again raises the validity of the HPV causation hypothesis.

Even if the hypothesis that HPV causes cervical cancer is true, South Africa has different circulating strains of HPV12. Prof Bogaert from the Department of Histopathology, National Health Laboratory, Service and University of Limpopo, questions whether the HPV vaccine is appropriate for developing countries. He concludes that the “current bi-valent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines are unlikely to achieve their target in the developing world”13.

A significant factor – and one which Prof Bogaert raises – is the lack of sufficient access to PAP screening. It is a requirement by the HPV vaccine manufacturers that the vaccine recipient undergoes regular PAP screening simply because the vaccine does not protect [sic] against all strains of HPV. In fact, the reported findings show that the “protection” wanes in as little as five years. This being the case, the vaccine may simply postpone infection by the vaccine-relevant strains and may also simply postpone potential cervical cancer.

It is already well-established that proper PAP screening detects and prevents cervical cancer so then one really has to question the necessity of the HPV vaccine, especially when it is a requirement to start/continue routine screening after vaccination14 and especially when it is mired in rapidly accumulating reports of injury and death following vaccination.

HPV vaccines not proven to prevent cervical cancer

The HPV vaccines have not yet been proven to prevent cervical cancer – only the precursors, most of which are already cleared by the body’s own immune system. The term ‘efficacy’ merely refers to the ability of the vaccine to produce antibodies to the antigens contained within the vaccine.

The vaccine has, however, been proven by the manufacturer of Gardasil to raise the risk of provoking the development of pre-cancerous lesions by 44.6% if the recipient was already infected with the vaccine-relevant strains15. It is highly significant that children as young as 3 years of age have already been infected with the HPV 16 virus16. The vaccine is also associated with abnormal PAP smears17.

It is also startling to realise that the HPV vaccines have not been thoroughly tested. They have not been tested for either carcinogenicity (potential to cause cancer) or for adverse effects on the reproductive system. None of the HPV vaccines have been tested on HIV infected girls/women. This is clearly a significant factor in South Africa and the question must be asked is this vaccine safe for anyone who is HIV positive? The truth is, we don’t know.

Thousands of serious HPV vaccine injuries being reported by thousands of young girls but are ignored by medical authorities

It is further distressing to learn that the increasing list of injuries reported after the administration of HPV vaccines is being studiously ignored by those with vested interests.

Young girls are reporting a number of serious adverse effects, including:

  • Neurological damage
  • Chronic pain
  • Seizures
  • Guillain Barre Syndrome
  • Paralysis Infertility
  • POTS Death. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HPV Vaccine victim groups are cropping up all over the world and are struggling to get their voices heard. 26 27. Japan ceased recommending the HPV vaccine(s) due to reported injuries and a lack of safety data. 28 There is now a major lawsuit initiated by 63 HPV vaccine injured girls against the manufacturer and the Japanese government29. The vaccines under question are both Cervarix and Gardasil.

Furthermore, there are two major complaints aimed at governmental authorities, namely:

1) The WHO advisory committee on vaccines – Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, which has been accused by Dr Sin Hang Lee (Director of Milford Medical Lab, USA and a highly qualified pathologist) of deliberately misleading a Japanese expert inquiry on HPV vaccine safety. 30 The GACVS reported no safety issues with the vaccines, despite the evidence to the contrary.

2) The Nordic Cochrane Centre31 who has also issued a letter of complaint32 to the European Medicines Agency following major discrepancies in an Assessment Report on the safety of HPV vaccines and has accused the EMA of maladministration and scientific misconduct.

All of the above information on adverse effects and questionable safety enquiries is being steadfastly ignored by those administering the HPV vaccine and parents are not being warned about the potential for serious harm. This questions the validity of the term “informed consent” which requires that medical professionals must inform the patient of the risks and benefits of medical interventions.

In conclusion, the HPV vaccine is an unproven medical intervention for a disease that can be prevented given regular PAP screening, which is required anyway if you receive the vaccine. In addition, the mounting reports of serious adverse effects should be raising large red flags to parents concerned about their daughters’ health.

Educate before you vaccinate.















14  HPV programs shown to be not cost-effective





19 on Danish girls injured by HPV vaccine)




23 – demyelinating syndrome

24 orthostatic intolerance







31 Nordic Cochrane Centre : “The Nordic Cochrane Centre (NCC) is an independent research and information centre that is part of Cochrane, an international network of individuals and institutions committed to preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care.”


While All4Women endeavours to ensure health articles are based on scientific research, health articles should not be considered as a replacement for professional medical advice. Should you have concerns related to this content, it is advised that you discuss them with your personal healthcare provider.