Church Arise!: Vaccines, Vaccine Deployment, and “New Vaccines”

Vaccines, Vaccine Deployment, and “New Vaccines”

(LSF SPECIAL REPORT ON VACCINATION)

August 2025

Part 4 of 5 Thursday 28^th August

Introduction to Part 4

Readers who have followed the first three serials of this Special Report will by now have gotten a fair grasp of the important differences between the three concepts of Vaccines, Vaccine Deployment, and “New Vaccines”. Vaccines, just like any other human invention, are never going to be perfect. Nevertheless, this cannot detract from their huge benefits to mankind – when appropriately deployed. So far, we have seen consistently sharp differences in the formats for deploying vaccines in the developed countries versus the developing ones, In general, the products used in the developing countries are largely PROSCRIBED for use in the developed ones. Worse still, developing countries are compelled to be dependent on the West for even those products – no matter the quality, no matter the asking price.

Malaria vaccines, by the very nature of the problem they address, are obviously meant for mass deployment in sub-Sahara Africa, specifically Nigeria, the infamous malaria capital of the world. These vaccines are one of the two case studies considered in this fourth and penultimate serial.

Many readers will be shocked to learn that despite well-advertised minimal efficacy (of much less than 50%, and lasting only about 7 months); huge deployment cost of between $12 – $20 per full dosage of 4-5 doses; and the scandalously concealed safety concerns that cropped up during the clinical trials, the manufacturers still insist that this product must be included in the routine childhood schedule for mass deployment in Nigeria. Troubling, though not surprising, the government has proudly announced her compliance with this “directive”.

The other vaccine discussed in this serial is the HPV vaccine produced to address cervical cancers. The vaccine is purposively designed to (proactively) help women, who while very young, had been introduced to early sexual activities, with multiple partners. In the best-case scenario therefore, this product can only benefit a specific at-risk population. It is therefore unwarranted that the inevitable health risk associated with its use should be spread to the general population by administering it en masse, indiscriminately. Sadly, the only discrimination that persists, is that in the actual products used in Africa and the rest of the western world. In short, we don’t use the same vaccines as the countries producing the vaccines.

We expect every literate Nigerian reading all these to be outraged as we are, concerning these developments. There is nothing “anti-vaxxer” in expressing these concerns and sharing this Report. Please do!

iv. Malaria Vaccine

We wrote a comprehensive article on the malaria vaccine at its debut in Nigeria in 2023. [24]. Interestingly, the NAFDAC had condemned the RTS,S vaccine endorsed by the Federal Ministry of Health, rather routing for the R21 vaccine which had been ignored by the Ministry. Both vaccines, however, are based essentially on the same principles and materials. Both target the pre-erythrocytic phase of malaria, using the same key antigen - the Circumsporozoite Protein (CSP) - albeit in different concentrations, and with different adjuvants.

In the article, it is shown from hard records that the newly touted malaria vaccines were indeed developed for short-term visitors from the outside world to malaria-endemic zones (specifically military personnel and tourists). A strong market in sub-sahara Africa is however required to make their production economically viable!

Stated efficacy of the vaccine is generally between 30 – 40% with duration of less than 7 months. Particularly concerning were safety issues. It is sad but noteworthy that the World Health Organization was found culpable of hiding adverse effects observed during clinical trials in a clearly desperate effort to promote this vaccine. The adverse effects included “a ten times higher rate of meningitis, a higher chance of cerebral malaria, and a doubling of deaths from all causes in girls who had received the vaccine and not the placebo.”[25]. Sadly, these issues are yet to be transparently resolved [26].

Notwithstanding all these serious deficits, we still recognize that these products of decades-long hard work by dedicated scientists might still be literally life-savers for some categories of people. We therefore endorsed the vaccines with the caution that it should be deployed strictly in line with their actual characteristics. We particularly recommended that it be made clear to people (particularly the press!) that at less than 50% efficacy, the vaccines are no silver bullets; and that government should not attempt to incorporate them into the list of essential vaccines to be vigorously recommended for the masses – as the marketers had bluntly demanded! [27] Unfortunately, these counsels have gone unheeded, and the malaria vaccine is now incorporated into childhood vaccine schedule in several regions of Nigeria [28] A 2013 Report by the Parliament of India, investigating the deaths of several girls in the shoddy clinical trials (dubiously dubbed “observational study”) of HPV vaccine in India, noted that once a vaccine got included in the universal immunization programme of a country, the manufacturer(s) are guaranteed “windfall profit, … by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses.” It further noted that “once introduced into the immunization programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination”.[29]

v. HPV Vaccine

It is generally held that cervical cancer, causing an estimated 8,000 annual deaths in Nigeria, is associated with infection by the human papillomavirus (HPV). However, although the infection by HPV definitely leads to warts which could progress to cervical cancer after about 15 - 20 years, if left untreated; the pathway is not at all straightforward, and the rationale for mass vaccination as the solution for cervical cancer has been vigorously challenged (30, 31).

In 2006 Gavi announced a $600 million HPV initiative with the goal of vaccinating 86 million girls in low- and middle-income countries by 2025. In the estimation of Gavi, the exercise will somehow avert “over 1.4 million future deaths” (32). Several assumptions used to arrive at these figures are clearly faulty.

First, HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, with the virus present at some point in time in up to 90% of anyone who has ever had sex. However, the infection is naturally cleared in over 99% of people who get it. Progression to cancer only occurs if this infection persists, is undetected, and consequently left untreated for a period of over a decade. A number of simple laboratory tests, including the pap smear test, regularly taken every three years could however reveal such HPV infection and available effective treatments applied. This looks like the straightforward approach to dealing with cervical cancer, rather than the global mass vaccination solution concocted by the GAVI.

This is especially so, since there have been numerous serious adverse effects associated with the vaccine. The medical literature from across various regions of the world is full of these adverse effects, which can be summarized under two broad categories: premature ovarian failure (leading, of course, to various reproductive issues) (33); and serious neurological and autoimmune disorders (34). Other, rarer adverse effects include veinous blood clots, kidney issues, and even death (35). In the US, the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out more than $70 million to people making claims regarding for injuries arising from HPV vaccines (36).

These adverse events are known to be inevitable. Deliberately embracing them in mass vaccination events offering spurious benefits is therefore quite incredible. According to Lyons-Weiler of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (37):

“In 2009, we were told the Severe Adverse Event [SAE] rate of HPV vaccines was 6.5%. But a study we published in Science, Public Health Policy & The Law showed that the adverse events profile of the HPV vaccine is far worse than has been reported…..Unleashing this vaccine on millions of girls and young women will lead to a mass casualty event these countries do not now have, and do not need. SAE’s will occur at the rate of 65,000 per million women vaccinated, and the claimed net benefits of the vaccine are just not there.”

Then again come the very concerning technical issues surrounding the vaccine types itself. First of all, as is becoming the trend, the particular vaccines shipped for use in LMIC are different from those in use in the first-world countries. Actually, they are essentially products that have been tested and discarded (or even proscribed) in the first-world countries, but are expected to be managed by LMICs – supposedly for an interim period - due to economic reasons. There are about 150 strains of HPV, with two of them, strains 16 and 18, responsible for about 70% of warts that could lead to cervical cancer, globally. However, the contribution of the different strains to cervical cancer is not uniform all across the globe, and there are significant regional variations. [In Nigeria, the major strains are 16,18,31,35,51,52, with the first two responsible for about 67% of cancerous warts].

Currently, the only vaccine used in the US is the nonavalent Gardasil-9 which targets 9 strains of HPV, with two or three doses, according to ages of the recipients (38). In Nigeria however, the recommended vaccine is the Gardasil-4 quadrivalent HPV vaccine targeting only 4 strains [6, 11, 16 and 18]. On roll-out, the vaccine was to be administered in three doses to achieve the nominal efficacy indicated during its development. However, at the present time, the WHO has determined that one dose will suffice (39). It is troubling that the main reason for this new protocol seems to be a desire to enroll as many participants from the LMICs into the vaccination programme, with little concern for the health outcomes. Indeed, a WHO Press Release hailing the revised protocols, specifically related them with a “goal of having 90 per cent of girls vaccinated by the age of 15 by 2030.” (40)

Apart from the safety issues previously mentioned, there is also a big technical question on the long-term efficacy of the vaccine solution for HPV infections and cervical cancer. This arises from studies indicating that while the vaccine might indeed reduce the prevalence of the target strains of HPV, they could end up increasing the prevalence of other more virulent, previously non-target strains. These also could end up contributing to cervical cancer! This phenomenon is known as HPV-type replacement (41).

It is therefore not at all surprising reports indicating that despite two decades of global mass HPV vaccination campaign, there is no significant reduction in incidences of cervical cancers. Indeed, in some populations, there are reports of increased incidences of cervical cancer in the vaccinated compared with the unvaccinated (42).

An extensive review of mass HPV vaccination written by the US-based Children’s Health Defense (CHD) featured some specific comments on the programme in Nigeria. In the report (37), Michael Baum, an attorney representing vaccine-injured plaintiffs in several lawsuits against Merck in the US was quoted:

“U.S. data makes it clear that vaccinating millions of Nigerian girls with Gardasil will cause a staggering number of serious adverse events, including death.”

Similarly, Kim Mack Rosenberg, co-author of “The HPV Vaccine on Trial” said:

“Having studied the HPV vaccines in depth for several years, I am profoundly concerned about Nigeria’s mass vaccination campaign. Instead of vaccinating millions of girls, steps should be taken to reduce risk factors that may contribute to cervical cancer, including early pregnancy and multiple pregnancies, poor nutrition and poor nutritional status, lack of access to clean cooking fuels, and others.”

Sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners, and oral contraceptive use are other well-established risk factors associated with cervical cancer. (43, 44, 45)

26. Benn C.S. (2020) WHO’s rollout of malaria vaccine in Africa: can safety questions be answered after only 24 months? https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.l6920

27. https://www.malariavaccine.org/resources/reports/rtssas01-malaria-vaccine-technical-brief

28. https://www.instagram.com/nphcda/p/DC1ttnpItDy/?hl=en

29. Report 72, 2013: Seventy-Second Report on Alleged Irregularities in the Conduct of Studies Using Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccine by PATH In India. Published by the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee.

30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5691619/

31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482043/#!po=37.5000

32. https://www.gavi.org/news/media-room/nigeria-vaccinate-77-million-girls-against-leading-cause-cervical-cancer

33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528880/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/

34 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308071

35 https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/evidence-of-serious-adverse-events-in-what-is-believed-to-be-one-of-the-most-effective-vaccines_4972564.html

36 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/injured-merck-gardasil-hpv-vaccine-case/

37. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-3-et/

38. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/public/index.html].

39. https://www.who.int/news/item/11-04-2022-one-dose-human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-vaccine-offers-solid-protection-against-cervical-cancer

40. https://www.who.int/news/item/11-04-2022-one-dose-human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-vaccine-offers-solid-protection-against-cervical-cancer