Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.


(47 Posts)
Orphadeus Thu 14-Feb-13 19:22:19

Each dose of Cervarix contains 0.5 mg aluminium hydroxide: You can check at Page 12, line 300 - 303:

'Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans, Scientific Findings and Recommendations' states:

'Vaccines containing aluminium hydroxide adjuvant have also been associated with the development of macrophagic myofasciitis. This recently-identified condition is characterized by macrophageinfiltration of muscle tissue after receipt of vaccines. Patients develop arthromyalgias and fatigue, among other symptoms, with one report indicating that about half of macrophagic myofasciitis patients meet criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.'

Page 119:

I'd recommend you also read about the Canadian study on Page 119.

CatherinaJTV Thu 14-Feb-13 20:44:13

Page 119 is about anthrax vaccine and observations from workers in goat hair factories in the 1950ies - seem totally relevant for the infant immunisation schedule hmm the report goes on to talk more about "deployment vaccines". The lengths anti-vaccine folk go into to "prove" aluminium is the new black mercury are slightly tiresome...

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 00:35:21

With respect - further down the page - this is from Page 119:

'A recent Canadian study evaluated long-term effects of both squalene and aluminum hydroxide adjuvants on behavior and central nervous system tissues in a mouse model. Using dosages comparable to those used in human vaccines, animals received two injections, two weeks apart, of one of the adjuvants, both adjuvants combined, or placebo. They were then evaluated using a variety of neurobehavioral tests over a six month period, followed by histochemical analyses of brain and spinal cord tissues. Anti-squalene antibodies were found in 20% of animals injected with placebo, 27% of those injected with aluminum, 40% of those injected with squalene, but only 10% of those injected with both adjuvants. Overall, the aluminum adjuvant produced more adverse effects than placebo, squalene, or the combined adjuvants. After six months, mice injected with the aluminum adjuvant exhibited significant declines in muscle strength and endurance, and increased indicators of anxiety, compared to placebo. Aluminum adjuvant was also associated with indicators of increased central nervous system inflammation and motor neuron loss, as reflected by a significant increase (350%) in the number of reactive astrocytes in the lumbar spinal cord and neuronal apoptosis in the motor cortex and spinal cord. Investigators concluded that their findings were consistent with an association between aluminum adjuvants and neurological deficits, including ALS. By contrast, squalene adjuvant was associated with fewer changes in brain and behavior, none of which were statistically significant.'

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Feb-13 08:23:35

Have you read the original publication?

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 17:31:00

Just to confirm that aluminium hydroxide was not removed:

The NHS refer to it as hydrated. Both hydrated (gel) and dehydrated (powder) aluminium hydroxide are aluminium hydroxide.

Here you can see aluminium hydroxide hydrate repeatedly referred to as aluminium hydroxide:

Here's a very important point: Its not clear why the NHS felt that urge when both the manufacturer and the FDA were content to call it 'aluminium hydroxide'.

Surely they cannot have put an attempt to cover ahead of the health of potentially millions of 12 year old girls?

'Stand your ground and fight
You know that our cause is right' - Motorhead, Heroes.

Gulf War Illness is an umbrella term that covers various ailments. The available evidence is that aluminium hydroxide in vaccine is one.

bruffin Fri 15-Feb-13 17:36:58

aluminium has been used as an adjuvent for 70 odd years with no reason to believe it causes any harm. Aluminium is in your every day foods and the amount in vaccines never has exceeded the allowable body burden even for tiny babies.

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 19:19:29

'..there are preliminary indicators, from both human and animal studies, that aluminum hydroxide adjuvant may be associated with neurological damage and chronic symptoms potentially relevant to the health of Gulf War veterans.'

(Page 120)

I'm finding it difficult to determine the history of aluminium hydroxide in vaccine as 'aluminium adjuvant' is ambiguous.

When you eat aluminium hydroxide, you excrete it.

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Feb-13 19:49:23

"potentially relevant to the health of Gulf War veterans "

not British teenagers - what do you want, Orphadeus?

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 20:25:50

Preferably a comment from someone who doesn't appear to think Gulf War veterans and teenage girls are a different species.

I've been trying to find out when the onset of Gulf War Illness typically began, as I have read about it being after the soldiers had returned. This might not be the best source -

'Symptoms began immediately in some cases, but mostly they have appeared 6 months to 6 years after the time of exposure.

- yet that might be correct.

bruffin Fri 15-Feb-13 20:44:39
bruffin Fri 15-Feb-13 21:31:02
CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Feb-13 22:43:48

Orphadeus - I know teenagers and I know Gulf War vets - there is a difference in "stuff" they have been exposed to, I can assure you.

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 22:44:14

We can put it in a nutshell. 'Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans, Scientific Findings and Recommendations' states:

'Aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for over 60 years, and are considered to have a good safety record. Vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants have been extensively studied in humans and animals for both effectiveness and adverse effects, but very little research has specifically looked at neurological effects of vaccine adjuvants, an area of particular interest in relation to Gulf War illness.'

Page 119:

Then it goes on to the more recent studies.

The links Bruffin has given are the work of charlatans referring to old hat while wilfully ignoring new research.

There is also an issue as to what the old aluminium adjuvants were. Aluminium adjuvant may refer to aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate or potassium aluminium sulfate.

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Feb-13 22:48:36

and your point is? You make no sense...

Orphadeus Fri 15-Feb-13 23:10:01

The last point was 'old research shows aluminium adjuvants are safe' could be referring to aluminium phosphate or potassium alimunium sulfate.

I am highlighting a claim:

'There have been many reported cases of ill-effects and ‘mystery illnesses’ from the Cervarix vaccine, especially autoimmune and nervous system problems and chronic fatigue, although there is no official count of ‘side effects’ in the UK. On the NHS Choices website I counted over a dozen reports of long standing disability following the vaccination. These families had found that conventional medicine was not able to help them. Most doctors were reported to have dismissed any connection between the symptoms and the HPV vaccine, even when the pain, collapse, fainting etc occurred only 48 hours after the injection.'

If it is normally between 6 months and 6 years later that symptoms appear, we may be looking at an epidemic.

The Telegraph way back in 2009:

'This week, relief of sorts arrived for the Steele family in the shape of a government report detailing the 1,340 instances of adverse reactions to the vaccine, Cervarix. Some girls have suffered paralysis, others convulsions; and some, like Carly, have experienced sight problems (in addition, Carly has now developed severe heat intolerance). Nausea, muscle weakness, fever, dizziness and numbness have also been reported.'

bruffin Fri 15-Feb-13 23:15:50

You link to homeopathic and holistic website sthen talk about my links which are based on the latest research as chaletains hmm

Orphadeus Sat 16-Feb-13 00:08:20

I spent some time trying to find when the symptoms of Gulf War Illness typically appeared. The homeopathic site was the only site I could find with solid information. I pretty much apologized for that in that post. If you can find a better source with information as to when the symptoms typically appeared, I would be thankful.
As for the observation on the holistic website, I was highlighting it.
You come across as a hired hand.

'It is important to note that the great majority of infections with high-risk HPV types go away on their own and do not cause cancer.'

Does cancer cause HPV?

bruffin Sat 16-Feb-13 01:40:15

I really don't know what you are wittering on about.
Hpv causes cervical cancer. Cervarix will protect against the 2 major strains. Its all immaterial as the no longer use cervarix in the UK and have moved over to gardasil which protect against 4 strains.
Gardasil only has 225ug of aluminum if it worries you.
Not sure why you are trying to compare cervarix with anthrax vaccines when the infant schedule has vaccines with similar amounts of aluminum and as said above there is no reason to believe these amounts cause a problem.

sashh Sat 16-Feb-13 08:03:30

OP did you do any chemistry at school?

An aluminium compound is not aluminium.

Sodium is a metal that is so reactive it's powdered form can spontaneously combust.

Chlorine is a poisonous gas used as a weapon in WWI.

Combine them and you get something many people are happy to put on chips.

You will ingest more aluminium if you eat a tuna sandwich than from a vaccine.

Orphadeus Sat 16-Feb-13 16:04:54

They are actively participating in arguably the biggest crime to have taken place within the UK this century.

I have been very polite considering what they are doing.

Yes folks, the apparatchiks have basically assured you that 'Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans, Scientific Findings and Recommendations' is a homeopathic conspiracy theorist site.

Orphadeus Sat 16-Feb-13 16:17:52

With regard to Bruffin's assertion that HPV causes cervical cancer, I am unaware of any evidence. There does to be a correlation between cervical cancer and HPV, for which there are at least 3 possible explanations.

1. Cancer causes HPV.
2. HPV causes cancer.
3. HPV is very common and people more likely to get cancer are less likely to shake off HPV.

If anyone has any evidence of which (logic rather than assertion), please post.

Orphadeus Sat 16-Feb-13 16:32:49

'BERLIN, May 31, 2004 ( - Most condoms contain a potent carcinogen, N-Nitrosamine, a German research facility revealed Friday. Of 32 types tested, 29 contained the cancer-causing chemical at highly elevated levels, up to three times what could be found in food, the study showed. Study scientists, who conducted the research at The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, said “N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances,” as reported by the Reuters news service. “There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem,” the scientists recommended. The chemical’s purpose is to increase the elasticity of latex rubber, and is released when a condom comes in contact with body fluids.'

bruffin Sat 16-Feb-13 17:45:53

throat cancer caused by HPV

more info on hpv and cancer

and loads more like that in google scholar and pubmed

but is suspect your only interested in conspiracy theories and not worried about real research.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 00:50:04

Thanks for the link (both the same). Unfortunately the graphs in the first link are rather small so difficult to decipher. However, it does say regarding the rise in the incidence of throat cancer in white males under 50 who do not drink or smoke:

'This malignant disease is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 infection.'

That does not make clear whether a carcinogen in condoms is involved, and does not make clear whether throat cancer causes HPV 16.

I've just found this:

'A study by the CDC on prevalence of HPV 16 in the US showed that the prevalence of HPV-16 was at least two-fold higher in women compared to men. Women of all races had an HPV-16 prevalence of 17.9 percent, compared to 8 percent for men.'

Either men tend to shake it off quicker..

Whatever - look at the high incidence - it is entirely logical that people more likely to get cancer are less likely to shake it off.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 00:55:35

Interesting the way the OP has been criminally sabotaged. Bearing in mind potentially children may die as a consequence..

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 01:00:17

The sabotage (links on words, the links went to garbage) appears to have been removed. Was it the computer I am using?

bruffin Sun 17-Feb-13 01:54:16

sorry wrong link but it clearly says hpv causes cancer

Persistent papillomavirus infection is required for the development of papillomavirus-associated cancer

I am not bothering any more as it pretty clear you have some very weird issues.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 15:15:58

Saying that HPV causes cancer does not mean it does. I'm open to it but find assumption:

'The tumor viruses change cells by integrating their genetic material with the host cell's DNA.'

Stephen Hawking also does it.

'Women of all races had an HPV-16 prevalence of 17.9 percent, compared to 8 percent for men.'

'There are many types of HPV, but one strain in particular known as HPV-16 is most strongly linked with oral cancer and also is a common cause of cervical cancer. That strain was found in about 1 percent of people studied, translating to about 2 million Americans.'

Someone is telling porkies.

If the former is true, it is most likely HPV does not cause cancer.

'Results during 2003–2005 documented an overall high-risk HPV prevalence of 23%.'

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 15:39:07

Lets remind outselves that high risk HPV is easily shaken off -

'It is important to note that the great majority of infections with high-risk HPV types go away on their own and do not cause cancer.'

- yet many people have it. That suggests a very high proportion of people have it at some point. How surprised should you be that people there is a higher rate of HPV among people with cancer?

Here's another. Condoms have contained - and presumably still do contain - a known carcinogen. It is plausible that people who use more condoms are more likely to have more sexual partners and are more likely to have HPV. (After a few they do not use a condom.)

'Amyl Nitrate increases the risk of Cancer'

Throat cancer?

Also, if I recall correctly, there is a potential cancer issue with regard to going down on women who are on the pill.

For people with high condom use or amyl nitrate use or in the habit of going down on women on the pill; not only is the cancer risk higher, there is likely also a higher level of HPV.

Is there any reason why cancer would not take up DNA?

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Feb-13 18:51:47

get help Orphadeus, really.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 18:57:21

The problem is the be all is The Narrative. N-Nitrosamine is still in condoms because the government had been urging condom use and a carcinogen did not fit The Narrative.

'Condom producers Durex were quick to respond. 'This is completely unsupported by medical and scientific evidence and no regulatory body has ever called for limits to be set on levels of nitrosamines in condoms,' said a company spokesperson the day the data were released.'

According to Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011):

'N-Nitrosodimethylamine is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals.'

(Thats the N-Nitrosamine that appears most likely to be used in condoms, but the others are all carcinogens too - check the link):

Expect no action.

The NHS pro-actively springing into action against HPV fits The Narrative. That they had been injecting 12 year old girls with Gulf War does not fit The Narrative.

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Feb-13 19:01:44

Really Orphadeus - talk to someone in real life about your fears. No one here will be able to help you.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 20:18:40

'HPV causes cancer' is science based on wishful thinking.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 20:43:32

All quotes are from Page 1 of 'Profile of Cervical Cancer in England: Incidence, Mortality and Survival (October 2012)':

'Over the last 20 years the incidence of cervical cancer in England has decreased by a third'

'Incidence rates are now higher than 20 years ago in the under 35s due to marked increases over the last decade.'

'Incidence and mortality rates tend to be lowest for those Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) and Cancer Networks (CN) in the south and east of England, and highest in the north and the midlands.'

You need to click on the link of the title.

From those, it may be possible to answer the question.

The first quote presumably rules out HPV as a major factor.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 21:02:56

The silence with regard to the incidence of HPV by region is deafening:

Table 4 gives the incidence of cervical cancer by region.

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 22:23:45

'Over the last 10 years there has been a 77% increase in the incidence rate for women age 25-29, with 281 cases in 2008 (see figure). For women aged 30-34 the rate increased by 29%, with 309 cases in 2008. In women aged 20-24 the incidence rate has remained fairly stable, with 39 cases in 2008.'

What could have caused an overall drop but an increase in the under 35s? It is said screening has reduced incidence yet I have also read that with screening, cases which are not cancer are counted as cancer.

Is it possible that since the 1970s there has been both a reduction of N-Nitrosamine in condoms, and an increase in the use of condoms from an earlier age?

Orphadeus Sun 17-Feb-13 22:43:32

• Problem: some are carcinogenic
• Some processing chemicals
used for rubber compounding
produce nitrosamines
• No limits for condoms; are limits
for baby teats

How to Keep Nitrosamine
Levels Low
• Nitrosamines are only a problem if they
come out of the condom, so only
extractable nitrosamines matter
• Extract as much as possible by effective
• Use accelerators that minimize

It is entirely plausible that Nitrosamines have been reduced in condoms, and there has been an increase in condom use at a younger age.

Orphadeus Mon 18-Feb-13 16:58:16

Here's data on SDIs by region:

We'll go by the warts. The East Midlands and West Midlands both have low wart rates. The average wart rate for England was 145.6 per 100 000 in comparison with 122.7 for East Midlands and 120 for West Midlands.

Yet with regard to cervical cancer:

'Incidence and mortality rates tend to be lowest for those Strategic Health Authorities (SHA) and Cancer Networks (CN) in the south and east of England, and highest in the north and the midlands.'

Click on 'Profile of Cervical Cancer in England: Incidence, Mortality and Survival (October 2012)'

The cervical screening uptake was 3.9% lower than the National Average in the East Midlands, and 2.4% higher than the National Average in West Midlands.

Orphadeus Mon 18-Feb-13 18:54:07

From 'Table 4: Incidence of cervical cancer in United Kingdom by cancer registry', I have singled out the rate per 100 000 women:

East of England 7.7
Merseyside and Cheshire 11.9
North Western 12.2
Northern Ireland 9.4
Northern and Yorkshire 12.3
Oxford Region 5.9
Scotland 12.1
South and Western 10.6
Thames 7.9
Trent 10.3
West Midlands 10.8

Now, using the link in the previous post, wherever possible I am going to put places in order of wart prevalence (which I will call HPV), and put the cervical cancer incidence rate alongside:

East of England: HPV 118, CC 7.7
West Midlands: HPV 120, CC 10.8
Oxford Region (Oxfordshire): HPV 158.5, CC 5.9

There appears to be no correlation.

JoTheHot Mon 18-Feb-13 19:26:03

There indeed appears to be no correlation ....between your posts and anything that could be described as coherent, reasonable or balanced.

Do you seriously think you can overturn decades of research with a few directed searches on google, and a piss-poor data analysis? What are you going to do next? Disprove the theory of relativity with nothing but an abacus and a physics primer?

Orphadeus Mon 18-Feb-13 20:22:37

Pointing out the fact that there (unnecessarily) a known carcinogen in most condoms seems coherant, reasonable and well balanced in the context of the thread. Pointing out that a major study into Gulf War Illness has pointed at something that is in Cervarix is also reasonable.

Lets take the hypothesis that warts have spread in Oxfordshire quite recently and have a look at the world, as it can't spread through a country so fast.

Cervical cancer incidence by area of the world is here:

Turkey is the most populous country within the lowest incidence region.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and types among Turkish women at a gynecology outpatient unit:

'Overall, 23% of the women was HPV positive. The overall prevalence of HPV in women with abnormal Pap smears was 36% (93/403), of which in ASCUS 22%, LSIL 51% and HSIL 60%. Also, HPV DNA was positive in 20% of the women with normal cervical cytology. The most common HPV types in cytologically normal women were as follows; HPV 16 (36%), HPV 6 (22%) and HPV 18 (13%). The rate of other HPV types were as follows; HPV11 4.4%, HPV45 4.4%, HPV90 4.4%, HPV35 2.2%, HPV67 2.2%, HPV81 2.2%, and multiple type HPVs 8.9%. The most common HPV types in cytologically abnormal women were HPV 16 (35%), HPV6 (19%) and HPV18 (8%). The rate of multiple HPV infections in women with normal Pap test was 2.2%.'

Nanny Hitler.

Orphadeus Mon 18-Feb-13 21:33:38

I think there is likely a link between a high prevalence of HIV and a high incidence of cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer incidence:

HIV incidence:

Turkey has a normal HPV rate but a low HIV rate and (being the most populous country in the lowest incidence area) a low cervical cancer rate.

Orphadeus Tue 19-Feb-13 00:37:06

Someone may find the info useful.

'Cervical cancer is considered an AIDS-defining illness or opportunistic infection.'

'HIV-positive women are living longer, but are now dying of cervical cancer'

Allegedly a team of researchers at The Royal Free believed there was no link between HPV and cervical cancer:

The research should be: Downey,GP et al. Lancet. 1994;344(8929):1097

HPV 16 and 18 are believed to be responsible for 70% of cervical cancer:

'It is estimated that as many as 75 percent of the reproductive-age population has been infected with one or more types of genital HPV.'

How can you say there is a link?

“We found that entire chromosomes were transferred [to the recipient cells], and we also found fusions, or translocations, between tumor cell chromosomes and recipient cell chromosomes,” said Holmgren

I think you get the picture.

Orphadeus Tue 19-Feb-13 00:57:39

'It is known that cancer progresses by vertical gene transfer, but this paradigm ignores that DNA circulates in higher organisms and that it is biologically active upon its uptake by recipient cells.'

I meant I think you have the picture of an alternate explanation.

'Transmission of HPV through routes other than sexual is definitely possible. One may be exposed to HPV simply by shaking hands as suggested in the finding of HPV virus under fingernails.
Sexually Transmitted Infections 1999 Oct;75(5):317-9:

Cancer causes HPV by weakening the immune system.

Orphadeus Tue 19-Feb-13 15:36:39

If you want my opinion, HPV cannot form cancer without an independant cancer cell.

The statistics say.

Look at Turkey:

'Breast cancer (36.47/100 ) is the most frequent type of cancer among women, followed by skin cancer (17.80/100 000), thyroid cancer (8.44/100 000) and lung cancer (7.20/100 000) and stomach cancer (6.81/100 ). The incidence of the five most frequent cancer types constitute 52.5% of overall cancer incidence among women. The remainder of cancer types has an incidence of 68.63 per 100 thousand. Cervical cancer comes 10th with an incidence of 5.32 per 100 thousand.'

'Overall, 23% of the women was HPV positive. The overall prevalence of HPV in women with abnormal Pap smears was 36% (93/403), of which in ASCUS 22%, LSIL 51% and HSIL 60%. Also, HPV DNA was positive in 20% of the women with normal cervical cytology. The most common HPV types in cytologically normal women were as follows; HPV 16 (36%), HPV 6 (22%) and HPV 18 (13%). The rate of other HPV types were as follows; HPV11 4.4%, HPV45 4.4%, HPV90 4.4%, HPV35 2.2%, HPV67 2.2%, HPV81 2.2%, and multiple type HPVs 8.9%. The most common HPV types in cytologically abnormal women were HPV 16 (35%), HPV6 (19%) and HPV18 (8%). The rate of multiple HPV infections in women with normal Pap test was 2.2%.'

In the UK, the cervical cancer incidence rate is 9.3 per 100 thousand:

Table 3:

Thats close to double the cervical cancer incidence in Turkey. Yet, the HPV rate among women with normal cervical cytology was 20% in Turkey -

- in comparison with 8.9% in the UK -

Table 14:

- and you might have noticed the most common HPV in Turkey was 16.

Orphadeus Sat 23-Feb-13 20:56:04

Its such a huge crime, that you do nothing?

Orphadeus Mon 04-Mar-13 22:47:51

'CERVARIX has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential.'

Page 13:

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now