Ещё одна прививка, ещё одна ложь!

Сейчас, когда в нашей стране начата массивная пропаганда и внедрение в практику вакцинации наших девочек, девушек, молодых женщин – будущих матерей России – против рака шейки матки вакциной «Гардасил», якобы безопасной и имеющей 100-процентную гарантию защиты от рака, стоит узнать об её истинной безопасности и эффективности из информации, поступающей из стран, где уже в течение нескольких лет эта вакцинация проводится.
Прочитав статью английской журналистки Кристины Энгланд (и краткие выдержки из других её статей, касающихся вакцинации против рака шейки матки), Вы узнаете, что вакцина против рака шейки матки и ОПАСНА, и НЕЭФФЕКТИВНА! Она даёт тяжёлые побочные реакции, в том числе повреждение головного мозга, а в некоторых случаях – смерть. И никто не знает, какие болезни разовьются у привитых в отдалённые сроки.

Решайте сами, стоит ли подвергать такому риску своих дочерей!

Институт Роберта Коха в Германии ставит под сомнение эффективность HPV-вакцин против рака шейки матки. (Germany`s Robert Koch Institute is Questioning the effectiveness of the HPV vaccines)

31 мая 2009 год

Кристина Энгланд (Christina England)

Источник http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/104266

Перевод И. М. Сазоновой

Во всём мире возникают опасения относительно эффективности и безопасности HPV-вакцин (далее русская аббревиатура ВПЧ-вакцина. Примечание переводчика). Пока многие из наших правительств отказываются прислушиваться к общественности и игнорируют всё большее число детей, которые имеют побочные реакции на вакцины Гардасил (Gardasil) и Церварикс (Cervarix), в Германии эти проблемы, наконец, рассматриваются и тщательно изучаются.

Институт Роберта Коха в Германии, который даёт рекомендации по государственному финансированию вакцин, пересматривает свою программу вакцинации после того, как 13 экспертов призвали к переоценке программы ВПЧ-вакцинации и к тому, чтобы положить конец «вводящей в заблуждение информации» об эффективности прививки.

Несколько недель назад Scotland on Sunday сообщила, что, по словам пресс-секретаря института Роберта Коха, их комитет по вакцинации изучает сложившуюся ситуацию. Она добавила: «Из-за общественного обсуждения, некоторых новых отчётов и новых заявлений от 13 профессоров, комиссия в течение ближайших нескольких недель опубликует заявление»

Шотландия серьёзно изучает свою политику вакцинации в отношении вакцины Церварикс из-за важных сообщений, написанных немецкими учёными  (German Scientists) такими, как Сандра H-Шевалье Батик (Sandra H Chevalier-Batik reports)

«Шотландская многомиллионная (в фунтах стерлингов) программа вакцинации против рака шейки матки была вчера вечером подвергнута сомнению после предупреждения старших экспертов в области общественного здравоохранения о том, что она может быть не столь эффективной, как ожидалось первоначально. Правительственные советники Германии пересматривают свои программы после сказанного ведущими учёными, что прививка не оправдывает ожиданий в предотвращении заболевания раком шейки матки

Теперь критики говорят, что шотландские советники по здравоохранению, которые дали разрешение на программу иммунизации за £ 64 млн. с участием тысяч школьниц, должны были бы рассмотреть доказательства полезности.

В последние несколько недель специалисты и заинтересованные матери из США, Великобритании и Голландии собрались вместе и решили написать этим 13-ти учёным, чтобы они описали свои опасения. Каждый из этих заинтересованных лиц имеет контакт с жертвами этих вакцин и они вооружены новыми доказательствами, которые они решили послать по электронной почте непосредственно этим учёным. Они разработали документы, которые отправили этим учёным, подкрепив их своими доказательствами и статистическими данными, свидетельствующими о том, что опасения учёных действительно оправданы. Эти документы были направлены 700 специалистам по всему миру. Профессионалы, которые получили их, являются представителями разных профессий, включая медицинских работников, учёных, представителей власти, журналистов и многих других. Они представлены на веб-сайтах по всему миру. Прошлой ночью Синтия Дженэк (Cynthia Janak), одна из авторов этого документа из США направила письмо другим авторам, в котором написала:

«Я только что получила письмо от онколога, и он согласился с тем, что безопасность вакцины, в действительности, не была доказана.

Профессионалы в целом сказали, что документы были хорошо представлены, и очень хорошо написаны».

Profitable Harm является одним из многих сайтов, на котором сейчас есть копии этих документов.

Чтобы понять, как ВПЧ-вакцины и другие вакцины вызывают повреждения головного мозга, слушайте программу радио в понедельник 1 июня 2009 6-7 PM MST и тогда Вы услышите ответ на вопрос «Вакцины вызывают повреждения головного мозга?» Настройтесь на KRFC FM 88.9 и слушайте аудио программы, где д-р Эндрю Мулден (Dr Andrew Moulden) лидер канадской группы активистов будет объяснять предмет неврологического повреждения от вакцины у Лесли Бота (Leslie Botha) из Holy Hormones, Honey.

На передаче будут Синтия Дженэк, журналистка, которая разместила список жертв Гардасила и Церварикса на своём веб-сайте Only The Truth, и которая пишет для Renew America, а также врач Dr Judi Gurstung

По словам д-ра Мулдена, микрососудистые повреждения от вакцинации вызывают аутизм, СДВГ (ADHD – синдром дефицита внимания и гиперактивности. Примечание переводчика), внезапную младенческую смерть (СВДС или SIDS).

Правительства всех стран и все, кто осмелился заявить, что вакцины безопасны, должны прислушиваться к тому, что он говорит, потому что этот человек действительно является очень сильным. В только что выпущенной статье под названием «Вакцины, применяемые у детей, вызывают повреждение головного мозга» (Vaccines used in children causing brain damage), он объяснил, каким образом с использованием фотографий до и после вакцинации может доказать, что 100% детей имеют повреждения головного мозга от MMR (вакцина против кори, краснухи и паротита. Примечание переводчика).

Эти данные были использованы в деле Бен Зеллера (Ben Zeller). Бен Зеллер говорит, что его сын Бен был нормальным 11-месячным ребёнком, когда ему сделали прививку вакциной MMR.

Через несколько дней у него случился приступ. Приступ был настолько серьёзным, что он оставил Бена с тяжёлым поражением мозга.

Г-н Зеллер всегда полагал, что приступ Бена был реакцией на MMR. Бен был здоровым и счастливым ребёнком во всём, а после вакцины он остался с тяжёлым повреждением головного мозга.

Д-р Мулден сказал: «У нас есть тысячи дел, и мы можем показать, что все вакцины вызывают точно такие же проблемы,

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Good. We want reader engagement, even reader ‘enragement’.

Most of all we want you burning up the resource documents provided, building your personal knowledge base, the private touch stone you consult before you agree to a new medicine, procedure or operation.

Based on recent comments to my Blog, I counted the number of entries I had posted concerning cervical cancer; thus far, 97 Inconvenient Woman Blogs have dealt with some aspect of this disease.

The sources for these articles are varied. I have taken information concerning cervical cancer from the Centers for Disease Control, Cancer Prevention and Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Women’s Health (http://www.womenshealth.gov), the American Cancer Society, Cancer Research Foundation of America, American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Cancer Institute, WebMD, WrongDiagnosis.com, New England Journal Of Medicine, JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, transcripts from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) including articles and OPED pieces written by  health care professionals, medical journalists, Pharma Industry pundits, critics and true believers.

I have always considered IconicWoman.com and my Blog, An Inconvenient Woman as an aggregator of women’s health information and issues. The Iconic Woman Project was initiated to disseminate health-related information that effects women and girls not regularly reported or analyzed by the mainstream press. My goal is to identify information of interest, poses questions and provide source documentation for my readers to pursue your own research and the resources to help you take action.

The Inconvenient Woman article archive offers transformative, educational information to improve your relationship with your body and yourself; and provides articles that will help readers expand your current perspective, and encourage you to take a more proactive stance concerning your health. The purpose of Iconic Woman is to Activate more Inconvenient Women. Women who ask questions, demand answers, verify answers with an independent source, make informed decisions and pro-actively participate in their personal health and well-being. Education and the willingness to ask questions and demand answers is a start. It is imperative that women be proactive in all aspects of our wellness.

The following description  of  “What Causes Cervical Cancer” is reprinted with permission from Health Information Publications.

What Causes Cervical Cancer?

We don’t know exactly what causes cervical cancer, but certain risk factors are believed to have an effect. Medical history and lifestyle – especially sexual habits – play a role in a woman’s chances of developing cervical cancer.

The most significant risk factors are:

• Human papillomavirus (HPV)
• Sexual history

Various other risk factors have also been identified.

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a virus that can infect:

• The genital tract
• The external genitals
• The area around the anus

HPV has nothing to do with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. There are 46 genetic types of HPV, but not all are dangerous. Only certain types of HPV, which can be transmitted from one person to another during sexual contact, increase the risk of cell dysplasia (abnormal cell growth) and/or progression to cervical cancer.

The HPV types that produce genital warts (lesions that are raised and bumpy, or flat and almost impossible to see) are different from those that cause cervical cancer. However, women who have a history of genital warts have almost twice the risk of an abnormal Pap smear as other women.

Sexual History

A woman has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical if she:

• Has had multiple sexual partners
• Began having sexual relations before the age of 18
• Has a partner who has had sexual contact with a woman with cervical cancer

Other Risk Factors

It is probable that other factors contribute to cervical cancer, such as:

• Poverty. Women who are poor may not have access to medical services that detect and treat precancerous cervical conditions. When such women develop cervical cancer, the disease usually remains undiagnosed and untreated until it has spread to other parts of the body. Women who are poor are often undernourished, and poor nutrition can also increase cervical cancer risk.
• Pap test history. Not having regular Pap tests increases the chance of unrecognized cervical cancer. Between 60% and 80% of women with newly diagnosed cervical cancer have not had a Pap test in at least five years.
• Tobacco use. Women who smoke are about twice as likely to develop cervical cancer as women who do not. The more a woman smokes – and the longer she has been smoking – the greater the risk.
• Eating habits. A diet that doesn’t include ample amounts of fruits and vegetables can increase a woman’s risk of developing cervical cancer.
• Weakened immune system. A woman whose immune system is weakened has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical lesions that can become cancerous. This includes women who are HIV-positive (infected with the virus that causes AIDS). It also includes women who have received organ transplants and must take drugs to suppress the immune system so that the body won’t reject the new organ.For more detailed information about AIDS, go to AIDS And Women.

• Hormonal medications. Some experts suggest that hormones in oral contraceptives (birth control pills) can make women more susceptible to Human papillomavirus (HPV). At least one study has indicated that taking birth control pills significantly increases a woman’s risk of developing HPV-related genital warts. Other research suggests that using oral contraceptives for five years or longer slightly elevates a woman’s risk of developing cervical cancer, especially if she began taking the Pill before the age of 25.
• Diethylstilberstrol (DES). A rare type of cervical cancer has been diagnosed in a small number of women whose mothers took diethylstilbestrol (DES), a medicine that was once used to prevent miscarriage.
• Douching. Because douching may destroy natural antiviral agents normally present in the vagina, women who douche every week are more apt to develop cervical cancer than women who do not.
• Chemical exposure. Women who work on farms or in the manufacturing industry may be exposed to chemicals that can increase their risk of cervical cancer.

Women with a weakened immune system due to the virus that causes AIDS are more likely to develop cervical cancer:

• Cervical cancer is very common in women who are positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
• Cervical cancer is sometimes the disease that first suggests a diagnosis of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
• HIV can compound the effects of Human papillomavirus (HPV), causing cervical changes to progress more rapidly into cervical cancer than they otherwise might.

Reprinted with permission from Health Information Publication. All Text and images in this post are protected by Copyright © 2002-2005 Health Information Publications. The information provided on this Web site has been developed exclusively by and for Health Information Publications and ehealthMD and may not be copied without written permission. The information provided is for general information only and is not intended to replace the advice of your health-care provider. This is original material developed by Health Information Publications, Copyright © 1990-2005

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Studies of GARDASIL, Merck’s Cervical Cancer Vaccine, and HPV 16 Vaccine Component of GARDASIL Presented at International Papillomavirus Conference

• Data from an Extension of a Phase II Study for an Average of 8.5 Years Evaluating the ongoing efficacy of HPV 16 Component of GARDASIL Presented
• Investigational Study with GARDASIL: Data Presented on Reduction in Abnormal Pap Tests and Cervical Procedures in Women Naïve to Multiple HPV types

MALMOE, Sweden, May  8, 2009 – In a study of an extended follow up of 290 women naïve to HPV type 16, the HPV 16 component of GARDASIL® [Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) Vaccine, Recombinant] was efficacious against HPV 16 infection for an average of 8.5 years after administration.  The women enrolled in this study are a subset of the original Phase II HPV 16 proof-of-concept study published in 2002.  Follow up ranged from 7.2 years to up to 9.5 years.

In a different study, in women ages 16 to 26 who were naïve to 14 common HPV types, GARDASIL reduced the number of abnormal Pap test results by 17 to 45 percent, depending on the abnormality, and reduced colposcopies by 20 percent, cervical biopsies by 22 percent and reduced surgery and other invasive treatments by 42 percent.

“We are encouraged by the extended efficacy data for the HPV 16 component of GARDASIL.  Studies to examine the long-term efficacy of GARDASIL are underway,” said Laura A. Koutsky, Ph.D., MSPH, University of Washington, School of Public Health. Dr. Koutsky and the University of Washington study site led this study extension.  Merck & Co., Inc. is a co-author of the original data and the new analysis.

GARDASIL is currently indicated for use in girls and young women 9 through 26 years of age for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18; genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11; and precancerous or dysplastic lesions caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18.

HPV types 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and HPV types 6 and 11 are responsible for approximately 90 percent of genital warts and about 10 percent of low-grade cervical changes/lesions/dyplasias.

Efficacy of the prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine
In a follow-up study of 290 women from a randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept clinical trial, the HPV 16 component of GARDASIL remained efficacious against HPV 16 infection and associated precancerous lesions for an average follow-up time of 8.5 years after administration.

These women had participated in a Phase IIb randomized-controlled trial of the prophylactic HPV 16 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine between November 1998 and January 2004.  They were enrolled in an extended follow-up study between March 2006 and May 2008 to evaluate the vaccine’s long-term efficacy.  Participants had not been infected with HPV 16 at the start of the study and through month seven (one month after the completion of the three-dose series).

During the extended follow-up period, no one in the vaccine group developed HPV 16 infection (vaccine efficacy = 100 percent; 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 25 to 100 percent) or HPV 16-associated cervical lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, or CIN) (vaccine efficacy = 100 percent; 95 percent CI: <0 to 100 percent).  In the placebo group, six women developed HPV 16 infection and three women developed HPV 16-associated CIN during the follow-up period.  Following participation in the initial study, all subjects were offered vaccination with GARDASIL.  Only those subjects who chose not to be vaccinated and who explicitly consented to being part of the extension study were enrolled.

During the combined trial and extended follow-up period – mean of 8.5 years, vaccine efficacy against HPV 16 infection was 96 percent; (95 percent CI: 73 to 100 percent) and 100 percent against cervical lesions associated with HPV 16 (95 percent CI: 47 to 100 percent).  In the placebo group, 21 women developed HPV 16 infection and eight women developed HPV 16-associated cervical lesions, including 7 cases of CIN 2 or worse.

In second investigational study, reduction in abnormal Pap tests and procedures
In two other randomized, placebo-controlled, efficacy trials of GARDASIL, a total of 17,622 women received either three doses of GARDASIL or placebo over six months.  Pap testing occurred at the start of the study and then at intervals of 6 to 12 months.  An analysis of the reduction of healthcare utilization endpoints (Pap tests and cervical procedures) was conducted in a population of women who were naive to 14 common HPV types and had a normal Pap test on day 1.

After an average follow-up of 3.6 years when compared to women receiving placebo (n=4679), women who received GARDASIL (n=4616) had significant reductions in the following abnormal Pap test results:

• ASC-US: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance associated with a high-risk type of HPV (17 to 22 percent reduction),
• LSIL: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (17 percent reduction),
• ASC-H: atypical squamous cells/cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (36 percent reduction), and
• HSIL: high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (45 percent reduction).

Additional important information about GARDASIL
GARDASIL is contraindicated in individuals with hypersensitivity, including severe allergic reactions to yeast, or after a previous dose of GARDASIL.

The health care provider should inform the patient, parent or guardian that vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening.  Women who receive GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care.

GARDASIL is not recommended for use in pregnant women.

The duration of protection with GARDASIL is currently not known.  Vaccination with GARDASIL may not result in protection in all vaccine recipients. GARDASIL is not intended to be used for treatment of active genital warts, cervical, vaginal and vulvar cancers, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) or vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN).

GARDASIL has not been demonstrated to provide protection against disease from vaccine and non-vaccine HPV types to which a woman has previously been exposed through sexual activity.  GARDASIL has not been shown to protect against diseases due to HPV types not contained in the vaccine.

Not all vulvar and vaginal cancers are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), and GARDASIL protects only against those vulvar and vaginal cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18.

In clinical studies for GARDASIL, headache was the most commonly reported adverse reaction with near equal frequency in the GARDASIL and control group (28.2 percent vs. 28.4 percent).  Vaccine-related adverse reactions that were observed at a frequency of at least 1.0 percent among recipients of GARDASIL and also greater than those observed among control group, respectively, were pain (83.9 percent vs. 75.4 percent), swelling (25.4 percent vs. 15.8 percent), erythema (24.7 percent vs. 18.4 percent), fever (13.0 percent vs. 11.2 percent), nausea (6.7 percent vs. 6.5 percent), pruritis (3.2 percent vs. 2.8 percent), dizziness (4.0 percent vs. 3.7 percent) and bruising (2.8 percent vs. 3.2 percent).

In addition, syncope has been reported following vaccination with GARDASIL, sometimes resulting in falling with injury.  Observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended.

Dosage and administration for GARDASIL
GARDASIL is a ready-to-use, three-dose, intramuscular vaccine.  GARDASIL should be administered in three separate intramuscular injections in the deltoid region of the upper arm or in the higher anterolateral area of the thigh.  The following dosage schedule is recommended: first dose at elected date, second dose two months after the first dose and the third dose six months after the first dose.

GARDASIL is approved in 109 countries
GARDASIL (sold in some countries as SILGARD®) has been approved in 109 countries, and additional applications are currently under review with regulatory agencies in many more countries around the world.

About Merck
Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceutical company dedicated to putting patients first.  Established in 1891, Merck currently discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medicines to address unmet medical needs.  The Company devotes extensive efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reaching programs that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver them to the people who need them.  Merck also publishes unbiased health information as a not-for-profit service.  For more information, visit www.merck.com.

Forward-looking statement
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  These statements are based on management’s current expectations and involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the statements.  The forward-looking statements may include statements regarding product development, product potential or financial performance.  No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual results may differ materially from those projected.  Merck undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statements in this press release should be evaluated together with the many uncertainties that affect Merck’s business, particularly those mentioned in the risk factors and cautionary statements in Item 1A of Merck’s Form 10-K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, and in any risk factors or cautionary statements contained in the Company’s periodic reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K, which the Company incorporates by reference.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

SCOTLAND’S multimillion-pound cervical cancer vaccination programme was thrown into doubt last night after senior public health experts warned it might not be as effective as initially hoped. Government advisers in Germany are reviewing the program there after leading scientists said the jab was failing to live up to expectations on the number of cervical cancer cases it might prevent.

Now critics say Scottish health advisers, who gave the go-ahead for a £64 million immunization program involving thousands of schoolgirls, should review the evidence as well. The HPV vaccine protects against two strains of the human papilloma virus, which are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. About 100 Scottish women die of the sexually transmitted disease every year.

Germany’s Robert Koch Institute, which makes recommendations on the public funding of vaccines, is reviewing its program after 13 experts called for a reassessment of its HPV vaccination program and an end to “misleading information” about the effectiveness of the jab.

The HPV vaccine is said to be effective in preventing the two strains of the virus that cause 70 per cent of cervical cancer cases, and scientists have assumed this means the vaccine can prevent 70 per cent of cases of cervical cancer.

But the German experts said the assumptions simply did not stand up to scrutiny, and that women remained at risk from other strains of the virus.

Studies of one vaccine brand, Gardasil, estimated it reduced the rate of pre-cancerous cells by only between 17 and 45 per cent. The scientists also warned that detailed data on Cervarix, which is the vaccine used in Scotland, was not being made available by its manufacturer.

Dr Ansgar Gerhardus, a public health expert from the University of Bielefeld in Germany, said: “The results of the studies clearly contradict many overly optimistic pronouncements. Women are entitled to be adequately informed.”

A spokeswoman for the Robert Koch Institute said its vaccination committee was reviewing the situation, adding: “Because of the public discussion and some new reports and new statements from the 13 professors, the committee will publish a statement within the next few weeks.”

Scottish Conservative health spokeswoman Mary Scanlon said: “Given this new research, it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government and the chief medical officer to review the vaccination program to ensure that it lives up to the expectations of preventing cervical cancer.”

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, was unable to provide figures on cases of pre-cancerous cells in women who have taken the vaccine, compared with those who have not.

He said: “The current scientific opinion is that an HPV vaccine such as Cervarix should improve the body’s immune response to natural HPV infection, which is important as women remain vulnerable to HPV infection … throughout their sexually active life.”

The Scottish Government said: “We believe Scotland’s HPV immunization program is a major step forward in saving lives. The program is based on advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization.

“Should the JCVI’s recommendation change, this would obviously be considered very carefully by ministers.”

Source: Kate Foster writing for The Scotsman, May 10, 2009

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.

Issued – Monday 30 June 2008, London, UK & Philadelphia, US

GlaxoSmithKline today provided the following update regarding its application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of Cervarix^®, its vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

GSK has submitted its response to questions raised by the FDA in their Complete Response Letter, received in December, 2007.  In addition, given that final data from GSK’s Phase III pivotal efficacy study, HPV-008, are expected to be available later this year, GSK has decided to augment its application for approval with these data to ensure they are included in the U.S. label. GSK anticipates submitting these data in the first half of 2009. The timing depends on reaching a certain number of cases in order to conduct the final analysis. An FDA action on the application is expected to take up to six months following this submission. Interim data from this study were filed in the original application for the vaccine in March, 2007. The company does not expect that new clinical studies will be required for approval.

“Study 008 is a key study that will be completing later this year, and we expect the final results will strengthen the U.S. label for Cervarix,” said Barbara Howe, M.D., Vice President and Director, North American Vaccine Development, GlaxoSmithKline. “We continue to have positive and productive discussions with the FDA and remain confident in the vaccine’s safety and efficacy profile. We look forward to bringing this important new cervical cancer vaccine to girls and women in the U.S.”

To date, GSK’s cervical cancer vaccine has been approved in 67 countries around the world including the 27 member countries of the European Union, Mexico, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines. Licensing applications have been submitted in more than 35 additional countries including Japan. GSK also submitted the vaccine to the World Health Organization (WHO) for prequalification in September 2007.

Notes to editors

Burden of cervical cancer
Worldwide, more than 500,000 women will be newly diagnosed with cervical cancer and over 280,000 women will die from it each year.¹ In the United States, after breast cancer, cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women ages 20 to 39.²

About GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline—one of the world’s leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies—is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer. For company information, please visit www.gsk.com/media.

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK Biologicals) is a leading global vaccine manufacturer committed to preventing disease in people of all ages with innovative vaccines and delivery systems. The division, headquartered in Belgium, is active in vaccine research, development and production with more than 30 vaccines currently available globally and 20 more in development. In 2007 GSK Biologicals distributed 1.1 billion doses of vaccines – an average of 3 million doses a day.

Cervarix^® is a registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies.

GSK cautionary statement regarding forward-looking statements
Under the safe harbour provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the company cautions investors that any forward-looking statements or projections made by the company, including those made in this Announcement, are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that may affect the Group’s operations are described under ‘Risk Factors’ in the ‘Business Review’ in the company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for 2007.

References:

1.       World Health Organization. Initiative for Vaccine Research.  Accessed on May 2, 2007.

2.       Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Sammuels A et al. Cancer Statistics, 2005. Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2005; 55; 10-30

This press release is intended for business journalists and analysts/investors. Please note that this release may not have been issued in every market in which GSK operates.

©2012 An Inconvenient Woman. All Rights Reserved.