Introduced in 2008, the primary objective of the HPV vaccine was to prevent cervical cancer. That’s why adolescent girls have been the primary target of the vaccine over the last decade.  Boys and gay young men are now also firmly in the HPV vaccine cross-hairs. Committees of experts and health authorities, many with strong ties to the vaccine industry, then get to decide on whether national vaccination programmes including HPV should be extended to adolescent boys, as well as girls.

It’s the UK’s turn to decide and the recent interim statement of the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is of particular interest, as are the minutes of the JCVI meeting that underpin it. The JCVI is provisionally saying it thinks the HPV vaccine shouldn’t be extended to boys. Apparently, says the committee of vaccine industry-linked experts, it’s just not cost effective.

Cancer is a very emotive subject and there has, as is to be expected, a huge and very public outcry condemning the recommendation.

Boys are already offered the HPV vaccine in Australia, Canada, Israel, Switzerland and the US.

HPV vaccine – cancer prevention or money spinner?

Interest in the HPV vaccine is being fuelled by research suggesting that it’s not just cervical cancer that’s associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV). Some other cancers, such as some anal, penile, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancers, may also be associated with HPV. Association, however, does not mean the virus is causative. There is also a link between HPV infection and non-life threatening anogenital warts.

Is this latest push to include boys in the HPV vaccine schedule really in the public‘s best interests or is it just another way for the vaccine industry to line its pockets? Let‘s not forget that the simple decision to include boys as well as girls as targets in national vaccination programmes virtually doubles Merck‘s Gardasil® market overnight!

The knowledge base of HPV vaccine is itself clouded by conflicts of interest. Important research that the ‘let’s HPV vaccinate boys and men‘ brigade are relying on has been led by a certain Dr Anna Guiliano, founder of the Center for Infection Research in Cancer (CIRC) at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida. A pivotal paper from Guiliano‘s group referenced in the JCVI interim statement refers to the safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men.

It turns out that in 2009 Dr Giuliano received $44,550 from Merck educational and speaking engagements relating to the HPV vaccine. This is one of the largest amounts on Merck‘s disclosure register. Merck appears not to have put its disclosures into the public domain after this period. Dr Giuliano does however continue to benefit from Merck funding as her “institution receives consultancy fees from Merck, through a three-way agreement”. A conflict of interest? We think so!

The JCVI experts have long been closely linked to vaccine industry interests. The minutes of JCVI meetings are meant to declare conflicts of interest. The problem is that full minutes have not been published by the JCVI since 2014 – all the minutes after this time being in draft form, without annexes containing declaration of interests.

JCVI consultation

The JCVI’s interim statement , that in turn provides the basis for the consultation, justifies its decision to not extend HPV vaccine to boys in the UK on the grounds that it is ‘not cost-effective’ and the girls’ vaccine programme already provides herd immunity. Some equality!

The data that underpins these views does not originate from the real war. It comes from model simulations, one developed by Public Health England, the other by Warwick University, that are littered with assumptions, many of which cannot be validated as relevant because there is simply not enough knowledge either of the natural history of the diseases, their associations with HPV, or the long-term effects (both negative and positive) of the virus.

The JCVI’s consultation is about throwing the net into the public domain to get views on its decision, and to collect any new data that might affect the final decision.

So, what are the JCVI experts saying?

  • High coverage in girls provides substantial herd protection for boys therefore vaccination of boys brings little additional benefit
  • HPV virus is associated with a number of cancers affecting both sexes. Evidence indicates the HPV vaccine would provide direct protection against many of these cancers
  • The risk of non-cervical cancers is higher in men that have sex with men (MSM) than heterosexual men
  • Data suggests there has been a significant decrease in infection rates of the two main cancer-causing HPV viruses in women linked to the national vaccination programme targeting adolescent girls
  • Evidence does not support a link between HPV vaccine and a range of chronic illnesses
  • Safety data shows the new 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil9®) is well tolerated in both girls and boys (it should be noted that this is from pharma funded research)
  • Data presented by the manufacturer shows immunogenicity is similar in boys and girls and is safe to use in boys
  • In order to prevent one HPV associated cancer in males you would need to vaccinate 795 boys when uptake of the vaccine in girls is 60% or 1735 boys when uptake is 90% in girls
  • The Committee has concluded it has no concerns over the safety of the HPV vaccine

Our Concerns

  • The JCVI experts have not publicly declared their conflicts of interest in the minutes of their June 2017 meeting, so it is essential that no final decision is made until ample time is given for the public to consider the implications of any conflicts
  • Much of the scientific evidence being used to determine the effectiveness, risks and cost-effectiveness of extending HPV vaccine to boys comes from scientists who have declared conflicts of interest and so cannot be regarded as independent
  • Evidence, on which the UK decision to extend HPV vaccination to boys is based, is from mathematical models that in turn rely on multiple assumptions, such as duration of immunogenicity, rates of transmission, sexual acts likely to result in transmission, natural history of the disease, etc
  • Neither the JCVI nor the National Health Service (NHS) (through Public Health England) should make decisions that involve the mass vaccination of the entirety of the adolescent population on the basis of mathematical models based on untested assumptions, throwing out the entire basis of evidence-based medical decision-making that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other medical establishments have long espoused
  • The public has been convinced that public health advice on disease prevention is based on use of an evidence-based medicine approach relying largely on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these.  When was it OK for health authorities to no longer rely on RCTs and use mathematical models that aim to predict future benefits and downgrade risks?
  • HPV is a sexually transmitted infection and therefore any models that aim to evaluate potential benefits and risks should include the effects of improving the quality and adoption of sex education in adolescent boys and girls
  • Approximately 90% of cases of infection resolve naturally within 2 years and it needs to be determined the extent to which specific natural immunity interventions, healthy diets and lifestyles can improve the rate of clearance of HPV and immunogenicity
  • Parents and eligible children are not being given information on alternatives such as safe sex, not having sexual intercourse early and limiting the number of sexual partners
  • HPV infection and cervical cancer risk is significantly higher in developing countries with around 85% of deaths from cervical cancer occurring in developing countries
  • The HPV vaccine is a genetically modified vaccine containing virus like particles (VLPs) made using “recombinant DNA technology”
  • We’re told the vaccine is safe and effective, but it’s only been in use for 10 years and these assertions are based on immunogenicity and not actual reductions in cancer cases
  • We are now on the 3rd type of HPV vaccine, with others in the pipeline. Health authorities should not rely on studies of the earlier vaccines and promote safety and effectiveness of these vaccines as if they all had the same safety and benefit profiles.
  • It is clear from the scientific evidence that aluminium used as an adjuvant in HPV vaccines is an active ingredient that mediates a specific range of side effects that can be particularly dangerous to sensitive children.

A more detailed discussion of our concerns can be found in ANH-Intl founder, Rob Verkerk’s recent very personal piece — HPV vaccine – the risk of uninformed consent?

We continue to hear more and more reports of girls who are suffering from serious debilitation following the HPV vaccine. Reports, that unfortunately are largely ignored by the health authorities or dismissed. Do we really want to expose young boys to this deadly vaccine and its potential to seriously damage their health?

What can you do?

Please share your concerns around the HPV vaccine and its possible extension to boys with the JCVI as part of their consultation.

The consultation is open for 4 weeks until the end of August 2017.

All responses should be sent to:

[email protected]

or by post to

JCVI Secretariat
Immunisation Department
Public health England,
Wellington House,
133-155 Waterloo Road
London SE1 8UG


  1. Thank you for promoting this important topic. The current vaccines are, according to research, highly effective at preventing HPV strains 16 and 18. Why then has the rate of cervical cancer in teenage girls (15-19) risen to its highest rate ever — it is low at 0.3 per 100,000 girls, but surely if it worked and over 85% of all girls in that age group are covered the rate should have fallen ? Equally the numbers of cancer for women in early twenties is the second highest since the vaccine programme began. (Source ONS, 2017, cancer registration stats for 2015). Why ? It is not working. It may be due to other more virulent strains taking the place of those that are prevented. Where is the UK research ? Why is no one in the U.K. Looking at at what has happened to the thousands of girls who are so injured by these vaccines.?

  2. To whom it may concern:

    I’ve said before and will continue to say, Drugs are there to be appropriately prescribed by fully trained medical practitioners only after a complete consultation and diagnosis of the individual patient has been carried out.  Mass vaccinations are contrary to all laws on this subject: vaccines are drugs, as is fluoride.

    I’m of the firm opinion that mass vaccination of any kind is totally wrong and medically unsound.  If there is no way to check if a vaccine will help a specific patient, it should NOT be given.  I’m living, walking (just barely on occasions) proof that vaccine damage is as bad as the disease it was intended to prevent, if harder to treat.  In cases where the incidence of the disease is low, compulsory vaccination is on a par with compulsory poisoning (not that fluoridation of water is any different – just harder to avoid – which makes it no less culpable.)

    People are individuals and react differently to the same substances.  This is to be evaluated by an educated, caring, above all COMPETENT doctor before endangering life and health.  If you really want to protect your children, stop the mass drugging of the population, both in the forms of compulsory vaccination and hidden toxins such as sugar in food to make people buy and eat more, not to nourish as food is supposed to do.  What does it matter if you child gets a case of chicken pox – which he’ll likely survive – if it makes him allergic to nuts for the rest of his life and his life is cut short because he sat next to someone who’d eaten satay for lunch and he dies (early) from that instead?  Train doctors to investigate first, improve diets second and drug only if all else fails!

    HPV vaccination is no different, a body must be evaluated for adverse effects first before it is given, never as a matter of course or economy.  People and health first, money, dollars, pounds and Euros last!

    1. Thanks for your comments Andrea. You’re so right, but we’ve been conditioned to accept this model and it’s only now as people are getting very sick that we’re starting to question things. Let’s hope more and more people start to hear our messages and question the status quo also.

      We’re sorry to hear you’ve suffered a reaction to vaccination and send our best wishes.

      Warm Regards

  3. The HPV-vaccine does NOT prevent cervical cancer; not 1 single case so far and it never will !!! Fact: The vaccine causes cervical- cancer: Gardasil 44.6% higher risk after vaccination ,Cervarix 32.5% higher risk. This is a well known fact by GSK, Merck and the FDA. There are over 76.000 cases worldwide of serious health-problems right now. The UMC ( Uppsala Monitoring Centre) and VAERS admit they register hardly 10% of the complains. So, multiply 76.000 by at least 10 and we,re closer to the truth. Another fact: Boys don,t have a cervarix !!!!!

  4. My daughter has had a number of debilitating symptoms since having all three HPV vaccine injections. My daughter has been left paraylised in both legs up to her waist and in her right arm. Suffers from chronic fatigue/ Me and chronic pain throughout her body. She has every symptom from the NHS stated reactions to this injection. Yet no doctor will admit that she is vaccine injured, no real help has been given to her she has been left in excuriating pain for four years. WHY ARE OUR GIRLS BEING GIVEN THIS INJECTION WHICH STATES ON THE ACTUAL BOTTLE AND PACKAGING which parents do not see. That this injection causes paraylisis and death. Surely parents should be notified of these server risks before we give our consent.

    1. Hi Nicola, thanks for sharing your story. The dismissal of symptoms linked to this vaccine is ongoing and something that needs to be tackled. We all need to come together and fight the health authorities assertions that vaccines are safe.

      We send our best wishes to you and your daughter.

      Warm regards

      1. Hi Melissa
        Definitely. The NHS web site states 1 in 10,000 girls get a server reaction bit it is more like 1 in 100 or even 1 in 50 girls yet there is no treatments or help for these girls they are all labels with conversion disorder which comes under mental health and they are placed in mental health hospital s. We do need to come together and change this. X

        1. Hi Nicola, we will continue to fight and make submissions to relevant organisations and consultations as well as providing information for others to share to raise awareness of these issues.

          Watch out for a new film coming from our sister organisation in the US about the devastating effects of the HPV vaccine in the next couple of months.

          You may also find the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Damaged Daughters a good resource and place to get support from other parents whose children have suffered adverse reactions as a result of this vaccine

          Warm Regards

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *