Is There A “Cui Bono” Already Accruing From The Gates $1.15 Million Cochrane Group Donation?
According to an article published May 18, 2018 by James Lyons-Weiler titled “Biased Cochrane Report Ignores Flaws in HPV Vaccine Studies, and Studies of HPV Type Replacement,” the Cochrane Group seemingly has lost its once-peer-review-acknowledged objectivity in science reporting!
Dr. Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist who has called Cochrane on the carpet for not exposing the flaws in the design and scope of a CDC HPV vaccine study and a Cochrane review. That 2016 CDC study had specific input from a U.S. CDC scientist, Lauri E. Markowitz, MD, which Lyons-Weiler claims had “fatal flaws that could be interpreted as steps to obfuscate and hide type replacement.”
In June of 2016, Lyons-Weiler authored “High-Risk HPV Type Replacement Follows HPV Vaccination,” which in the opening paragraph states:
The number of studies that show that partial immunization via available HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines is not only insufficient at reducing overall HPV infection rates; the vaccines actually cause rarer, more lethal types of HPV to sweep in and the net effect could be devastating increases in HPV-related cancers. [….]
The statistics on the types that are said to be known to cause the most cancers are potentially misleading, because there is an inverse relationship between the ability of pathogen to cause disease (morbidity) and death (mortality). If you count numbers of cases, yes, HPV-16 appears to be high-risk. But the low-frequency types may be even HIGHER risk – which would explain why they are low-frequency.
The study from Germany (Fisher et al., 2016)  is definitive, and we have our answer: HPV type replacement is real, and is caused by partial vaccination against an oncogenic virus group.
(1) No credible science supports the claims of health benefits from HPV vaccination at the population level, and
(2) The risks of serious and moderate adverse events may be knowable via re-analysis of data submitted to the FDA for Gardasil 4-valent vaccine, and for the Gardasil 9-valent vaccine. However, at this time, no credible science exists that can support the conclusion that HPV vaccination is generally safe.
New randomized clinical trials with saline placebo are needed in which all new medical conditions are analyzed as potential serious adverse events. It is scientifically unsound to exclude medical conditions that emerge after vaccination due to assessment by those running the study that the conditions were not caused by the vaccine. The data should be allowed to speak for themselves.” [CJF emphasis]
So why did Cochrane fail to come to these conclusions? One issue is that while her name is not on the final report, as an CDC scientist Markowitz was involved in the design of the protocol and, according to the report:
“We acknowledge Lauri Markowitz for her invaluable advice and contributions by reviewing the results and discussion sections.”
for the apparent input Markowitz had in ‘reviewing’ the Cochrane HPV vaccine report “Does HPV vaccination prevent the development of cervical cancer? Are there harms associated with being vaccinated?”
This apparent Cochrane “lack of scientific objectivity” assessment is taken from the above Cochrane article:
New evidence published in the Cochrane Library shows that human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines protect against cervical lesions in young women, particularly in those who are vaccinated between the ages of 15 and 26. It also summarizes findings on harms that have been assessed in randomized controlled trials.
Now, contrast the above “new evidence” with this unfavorable critique of the HPV vaccine by Dr. Peter Gotzsche, Director and Professor of Nordic Cochrane Centre, who filed a complaint with the European Medicines Agency regarding the HPV vaccine.
Realistically, this was the prior $1.15 Million Gates Donation Summary of Cochrane’s rebuttal to the EMA Ombudsman’s decision:
The Ombudsman concludes that there was no maladministration by the EMA in the handling of the referral procedure on HPV vaccines. We disagree. We found many examples of scientific maladministration. As long as the Ombudsman is not willing to comment on scientific maladministration, even when it is apparent for people without a scientific background, there is, in reality, no public safeguard against poor conduct by EMA. As far as we know, there is no disciplinary committee in the European Union that can take appropriate action against EMA. We find this deeply concerning.
One has to ask, “Cui bono?”
Furthermore, one of the issues Lyons-Weiler pointed out to Dr. Markowitz included that “existing studies pointed to HPV type replacement,” something she could not deny knowing. Here’s what Lyons-Weiler thinks:
It is therefore remarkable – and telling – that the Cochrane report did not even mention type replacement. [CJF emphasis]
The other issue is that Cochrane now receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. See AHRP: Gates Foundation Buys Cochrane Integrity for $1.15 Million.
So, “Cui bono?”
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)