Clinical Trials on Vaccines : the Revelations of a Doctor

Meehan MD on the poor science of the recent Danish MMR Autism Study

Published on 6 March 2019, by Jim Meehan, MD


Cancer of the cervix uteri

Half a million new cases of cervical cancer are added each year


Since the publication of the last FIGO Cancer Report there have been giant strides in the global effort to reduce the burden of cervical cancer, with WHO announcing a call for elimination. In over 80 countries, including LMICs, HPV vaccination is now included in the national program. Screening has also seen major advances with implementation of HPV testing on a larger scale. However, these interventions will take a few years to show their impact. Meanwhile, over half a million new cases are added each year. Recent developments in imaging and increased use of minimally invasive surgery have changed the paradigm for management of these cases. The FIGO Gynecologic Oncology Committee has revised the staging system based on these advances. This chapter discusses the management of cervical cancer based on the stage of disease, including attention to palliation and quality of life issues.


College women, HPV genotyping and sexual behavior before HPV vaccination

Results from samples stored for a long time

This 2018 study was carried out from 2001 to 2005 in college women from Morelos State University in Mexico. Participants were related to the health science field (Medicine, Pharmacy, Psychology, Biology, and Education).. Students with ≥ 3 sexual partners and who did not use condom had 12.8 higher odds of being HPV positive.


HPV is the sexually transmitted agent most common among young people, like college students.

The aim of study was to associate sexual behavior characteristics of women with HPV, detected in genital samples taken before the introduction of the HPV vaccine.

Female students during 2001–2005 donated genital samples and the samples were re-analyzed in 2013 for HPV genotyping by RT-PCR.

The frozen storage of the students’ genital samples allowed the detection of HPV DNA and its genotyping after years of sample collection. HPV prevalence was 22%, HPV16 3.9%, and HPV18 1.1%.

Age, multiple sexual partners and the partner’s age at first sexual intercourse were significantly associated to HPV. Students with ≥ 3 sexual partners and who did not use condom had 12.8 higher odds of being HPV positive.

In this report, we found that students with older partners at first sexual intercourse had a higher possibility of becoming positive for HPV DNA. This is relevant because it has been reported that sexual partner’s age is an important risk factor for HIV infection in homosexual men and it is thought that this is partially due to the low acceptance of condom use by older sexual partners. This behavior could also happen regarding HPV, for heterosexual partners. In fact, we found that 49.0% of the older sexual partners did not use condom, compared with 40.1% of younger sexual partners as reported by participating college women (p = 0.119). Additionally, there was a higher possibility of being positive for HPV DNA in women 26 years old or older, this group reported a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and lower frequency of condom use during last sexual intercourse.

The interaction between the number of sexual partners (main risk factor for HPV exposure) and condom use (barrier against HPV exposure) was clear in the studied population, and even though condom use effectiveness in preventing HPV infection has been inconsistent in cross sectional studies, a review of longitudinal studies shows that it protects against the infection.

Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia

Systematic review of longitudinal studies, 2014

HPV and cancer : the condom is much more effective than the vaccine in preventing cancer, including when dysplasias are already present. As a bonus, remember that the condom protects against a whole lot of other unpleasant infections or dangers…


Based on cross-sectional studies, the data on protection from Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections related to using male condoms appear inconsistent. Longitudinal studies are more informative for this purpose. We undertook a systematic review of longitudinal studies on the effectiveness of male condoms in preventing HPV infection and cervical neoplasia.

We searched PubMed using MeSH terms for articles published until May 2013. Articles were included if they studied a change in non-immunocompromized women’s cervical HPV infection or cervical lesion status along with the frequency of condom use.

In total, 384 abstracts were retrieved. Eight studies reported in 10 articles met the inclusion criteria for the final review. Four studies showed a statistically significantly protective effect of consistent condom use on HPV infection and on regression of cervical neoplasia. In the remaining four studies, a protective effect was also observed for these outcomes, although it was not statistically significant.

Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer.

Révision (Cochrane) du vaccin HPV : incomplète et avec de nombreux biais ?

Rien ne justifie de recommander le vaccin Gardasil contre les papillomavirus

Cochrane – Une institution indépendante de l’industrie pharmaceutique, a récemment blanchi les vaccins recommandés pour prévenir le cancer du col de l’utérus, controversés depuis dix ans. Des voix qui contestent solidement l’efficacité de cette vaccination mettent aujourd’hui leurs données à la disposition du public et des médias.

Avec ses collègues (Dr Jean-Pierre Spinosa, gynécologue, et Serena Tinari, journaliste d’investigation), Catherine Riva considère que Cochrane devrait rétracter cette revue et tout reprendre depuis le début. Mais l’organisation est restée sourde aux doléances qu’ils lui ont adressées suite à la publication de la revue. Son refus d’entrer en matière est la goutte de trop qui les amène aujourd’hui à tout rendre public. Le 10 décembre, leur analyse critique de la revue Cochrane sur les vaccins anti-HPV était dévoilée sur le British Medical Journal  L’ensemble des données et des tableaux à l’appui de leurs conclusions ainsi que leurs six ans de correspondance avec Cochrane sont désormais en accès libre.

LisezRien ne justifie de recommander le vaccin Gardasil contre les papillomavirus” sur parismatch.

Gardasil alert, imminent risk of unnecessary and sometimes dangerous HPV vaccination for girls and boys

Gardasil : the anticancer vaccination that increases the risk of cervical cancer in young women

Reference. Written by Gérard Delépine, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon/Oncologist/statistician, July 23, 2018.

Open letter to parliamentarians, and to all citizens.

BE CAREFUL. While many doctors, foreign and French, citizens, patients sometimes victims, have been trying to inform for many years about the uselessness and the risks of the HPV vaccine, a new offensive of the pharmaceutical lobbies led again some MPs to try to introduce laws to make it a compulsory vaccination, already probably the most widespread in the world.

We have analysed the benefit-risk of this vaccine originally intended for women, but boys are likely to be targeted as well and denounced several times its uselessness coupled with its risks. both in women and in men. The time spent since FDA’s marketing authorization in June 2006 only adds new arguments against this vaccination, the strongest of which is the increase in the number of cervical cancers in the vaccinated population. which should encourage these countries to follow the example of Japan and Austria and to delete the recommendation.

Attention, some MPs want to impose a vaccination that can increase the risk of cervical cancer, as proven by international publications of national cancer registries.


The preamble to the bill is based on the usual arguments of pharmaceutical companies widely disseminated by the media and their comfortably paid experts.

This preamble certainly recalls some indisputable true facts: there are more than one hundred HPV strains, the vaccines possibly protect against infection by the 4 to 9 strains included in the vaccine (only 2 to 5% of the 200 known strains ), against genital warts and some dysplasia’s without specifying that there is no evidence that it protects against cancer.

It is extremely disturbing to read in the presentation of opinion justifying the proposed law a number of known untruths:

« There are more than one hundred and twenty kinds of human papillomavirus (HPV), and fifteen are considered to be at high risk because they can cause cancers including HPV 16 and 18 causing 70% of infections. » But this only demonstrates a statistical correlation between presence of HPV and cancer, without anyone being so far able to demonstrate a direct CAUSALITY link.

« There are effective HPV vaccines. Current vaccines offer effective vaccination against 70% of carcinogenic HPV, and a new vaccine will soon increase this rate to 90%. » But, what do MPs mean by efficiency? the vaccine is effective on the infections of strains targeted by the vaccine (only 4 to 9 of the nearly 200 listed strains) but there is no evidence that it can prevent invasive cancer let alone avoid death by this cancer.

Citing Australia as a vaccine success story: « In Australia, where 80% of women and 75% of men are vaccinated, cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared ». But, this statement is outrageous, as the following presentation will show you, because in this highly vaccinated country the number of cervical cancers (and other cancers attributed to HPV) continue to increase.

They also deny the risk of serious side effects that have led to protests in many countries (Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Colombia) and legal complaints from doctors against the EMA.


The regular smear (every three years) better guarantees early detection of cervical cancer.

In France, HPV infection is not a real public health problem in 2018, neither for women nor for men. In women, since smear screening has been used, the annual number of deaths from cervical cancer is consistently less than 1000 in France, and the women who die are almost exclusively those who have not been screened.

Diagnosis of HPV papillomavirus infection detected by systematic sampling should be avoided! Positive results often lead to unnecessary examination and very early conisation (biopsy) which is often useless.

The <1000 deaths per year from cervical cancer could all have been prevented by screening, Compare this with lung cancer (23,000 deaths), breast cancer (11,883 deaths), or prostate cancer (8,207 deaths) [15] .

Whilst efficacy of smear screening is proven, HPV vaccination not been proven to prevent a single invasive cervical cancer. The cancer registry records even suggest that this vaccine is sometimes likely to increase the risk.


Curiously, the MPs who signed the bill do not talk about the proven results of the vaccine on the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, its only official justification.

Instead of reducing the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix, HPV vaccines keep it at a high level or increase it!

After 12 years of use and more than 200 million girls vaccinated worldwide for a total bill of nearly $100 billion paid directly or indirectly by citizens , we can indeed draw a balance of effectiveness of vaccination in two ways:

  1. By examining the evolution of the incidence (annual frequency of new cases per 100,000 women) of the invasive cancer of the cervix in each country, before and after vaccination, a method already validated in 2003.
  2. World Standardised Rates: gross Incidence reported as « Standard World Population » to correct possible biases related to the demographic characteristics of each country.

The evolution of the incidence of cervical cancer before and after vaccination with Gardasil can be traced in a perfectly reliable way in the national cancer registries controlled and published by the ministries of health of the concerned countries.


Australia, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the incidence of cervical cancer declined by almost 50%, from 12(/100,000) in 1995 to 7 in 2004 (before the vaccination campaign). Mortality also improved, thanks to smear screening and treatment. However, since the vaccination campaign started in 2007, there has been no further decrease in either incidence or mortality. In 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer is estimated at 7.1 and cervical cancer mortality has increased by almost 15% from 1.7 in 2014 to 2 in 2017. And our MPs quote Australian efficiency!

The Australian Ministry of Health estimates the number of new cases of cervical cancer is 912 in 2017 and 930 in 2018. Claiming, like our MPs, that « cases of HPV lesions have almost disappeared » in Australia is therefore not correct. One cannot imagine that these MPs lie voluntarily, so we can conclude that they are poorly informed and that they should have checked themselves the information provided by the experts related to laboratories before distributing this « fake news ».

Great Britain, according to Cancer Research UK, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to smear screening) from 12.4 in 1995 to 9.27 in 2004. But since vaccination, there is no longer any evidence of improvement, nor on the incidence stagnating from 9.3 in 2006 to 9.6 in 2015 nor on the mortality remaining at 3.

Canada. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, the incidence of cervical cancer has decreased (through screening) from 18 in 1972 to 8.1 in 2008. But since vaccination, there has been no further progress on incidence stagnating at 8.3 in 2017.

United States, according to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER cancer statistics review, the incidence of cervical cancer reduced from 14.8 in 1975 to 6.66 in 2007. But since vaccination, there has been no decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer reached 6.68 in 2015 .

Norway, according to the Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo: before vaccination, the standardized incidence had fallen sharply thanks to smear screening from 24 in 1965 to 7 in 2004. But since the vaccination, it goes up to 13.9 in 2014 and 14.9 in 2015.

Sweden, according to the National Kvalitetsregister for Cervix Cancer prevention (NKCx ): before the vaccination campaign, the incidence of cervical cancer had decreased (thanks to screening) from 18 in 1967 to 7 in 2006. The worldwide standardized incidence of cervical cancer has increased significantly since vaccination rising to 10.3 in 2012 and 11.5 in 2015. This increase is almost exclusively due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancer among women aged 23 to 49, which has reached more than 50% since 2006 (11 in 2006 versus 17 in 2015), whereas it is those who have the highest vaccination coverage rate (85%).

Thus, in countries whose populations have access to smear screening, it has led to a considerable reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer (from 40 to 60%). In contrast, the introduction of vaccination has not reduced the incidence or mortality of cervical cancer. Contrary to what is promised by laboratory-related physicians and by many global health authorities, vaccination campaigns have even been followed by an increase in the incidence of cancer.

France, with low levels of HPV vaccination, can serve as a control country. According to Public Health France, the incidence of cervical cancer in mainland France has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017. This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017. France, with low use of Gardasil, has a much more satisfactory evolution for both incidence and mortality than that of the countries cited as example by the MPs who want to impose vaccination.

Comparison of recent standardized incidences with vaccination coverage rates.

Immunization advocates claim that a high vaccination coverage rate reduces the risk of invasive cancer of the cervix. Yet the comparison of incidence and mortality rates with vaccine coverage rates shows the opposite:

Australia, HPV vaccination coverage exceeds 85% , but in 2017 the incidence of cervical cancer is 7 and the mortality is 2

Great Britain, despite vaccination coverage exceeding 80%, the incidence in 2015 was 9.6 and mortality 3

Sweden the vaccination coverage rate is close to 75% but the incidence 2015 reaches 11.5.

USA, in 2017 the vaccination coverage rate is 60% for a cervical cancer incidence of 6.8 and a specific mortality at 2.3.

France , in 2017, HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15% ) for a cervical cancer incidence of 6 and a specific mortality of 1.7

In countries with high immunization coverage, the incidence of invasive cancers and mortality are therefore higher than in France, and compulsory immunisation proposed by some MPs would eliminate this French paradox that protects our children!


The harmful side-effects are difficult to deny

In their preamble, the MPs deny that Gardasil can lead (as any treatment) to complications while Japan, Austria and Denmark have stopped promoting this vaccination after serious complications, sometimes even fatal and that families suffering from these vaccines organized public demonstrations in several countries of the world (Japan, Colombia, Ireland), and that Danish doctors lodged a complaint against the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which refused to answer the questions they asked. after the notification of severe neurological events not listed in the EMA registers.

In France, several lawsuits are in progress.

« Among the most frequently mentioned by the victims defended by M pathologies e Coubris include multiple sclerosis, lupus, disseminated acute encephalomyelitis (inflammation of the central nervous system) and myofasciitis macrophages (a disease that results in pain muscle and chronic fatigue) ». A parliamentary commission of inquiry which could hear experts, citizens and independent associations of laboratories, having, from near or far, no link of interest with laboratories, would be a first step to enlighten Parliament.

IN CONCLUSION, the benefit-risk balance is not in favour of vaccination, let alone compulsory.

A compulsory health measure should not be based on faith in vaccination or hidden conflicts of interest, but on proven facts, verifiable by every citizen. However, the facts established by the official records of cancer registries show that HPV vaccination does not protect against invasive cancer of the cervix but seems rather to maintain its frequency at a high level, and sometimes even increase it.

Let us fight against this bill that threatens our children, by informing everyone, our MP, our senator, our elected officials, that no one may be unaware.

Only this work of proximity of each citizen this summer, will be able to avoid this new catastrophe of return which could be the anti-HPV vaccination, as it has been and still is the obligation of vaccination against hepatitis B.

Let’s apply the precautionary principle! Let us respect the right of every human being to informed choice/consent for medical interventions!

Could HPV vaccination play a role in the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer ?

Increased incidence of cervical cancer in Sweden : Possible link with HPV vaccination

Recently, when the Swedish media discussed the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer, the health authorities were unable to explain the increase.

2018 Study Abstract

The Centre for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Sweden has noted in its annual report a substantial increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, especially during the two years 2014 and 2015. I have sub-grouped the data according to age, using the same statistical database of the National Board of Health and Welfare as used by the authors of the above-mentioned report. The increase in the incidence of cervical cancer was shown to be most prominent among women 20–49 years of age while no apparent increase was observed among women above 50. The FDA has noted in the clinical trials referred to it for marketing approval that women exposed to the human papilloma virus (HPV) prior to vaccination had an increase in premalignant cell changes compared with placebo controls. I discuss the possibility that HPV vaccination could play a role in the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer by causing instead of preventing cervical cancer disease in women previously exposed to HPV. A time relationship exists between the start of vaccination and the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer. The HPV vaccines were approved in 2006 and 2007, respectively and most young girls started to be vaccinated during 2012–2013.

Featured image credit ijme shows increase in incidence of cervical cancer among younger women (<50 years) as compared with women ≥50 years. The data shows the number of cases/100,000 women from 2006 to 2015.

Anyone got any health problems after the HPV vaccination ?

Contact “TimeForAction”, a campaign group run by UK families for UK families

My daughter has developed health problems after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, what should I do ?

If your daughter has developed health problems after HPV vaccination, please get in touch with TimeForAction – a campaign group run by UK families for UK families. They’re campaigning hard to ensure that these health problems are properly acknowledged and investigated, that families are treated with compassion and respect within the health service and that there is educational support in place for the girls who are struggling to attend school on a full timetable.

TimeForAction is also calling for a full disclosure of all the potential risks associated with the HPV vaccination to be given to parents when seeking consent, in conjunction with a more accurate assessment of the stated benefits. For more information, visit TimeForAction website, call 07885 422690, email, tweet or use this form.

HPV vaccination not recommended by 1/3 of doctors

Primary Care Physicians’ Perspectives About HPV Vaccine

Around one third of doctors surveyed do not strongly recommend the HPV vaccine to parents. Researchers used a national survey asking approximately 600 paediatricians and family doctors, between October 2013 and January 2014, to outline their stance on the HPV vaccine.

January 2016 Study Abstract

Because physicians’ practices could be modified to reduce missed opportunities for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, our goal was to:

  1. describe self-reported practices regarding recommending the HPV vaccine;
  2. estimate the frequency of parental deferral of HPV vaccination;
  3. and identify characteristics associated with not discussing it.

A national survey among pediatricians and family physicians (FP) was conducted between October 2013 and January 2014. Using multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with not discussing HPV vaccination were examined.

Response rates were 82% for pediatricians (364 of 442) and 56% for FP (218 of 387).

  • For 11-12 year-old girls, 60% of pediatricians and 59% of family physicians (FP) strongly recommend HPV vaccine; for boys,52% and 41% ostrongly recommen.
  • More than one-half reported ≥25% of parents deferred HPV vaccination.
  • At the 11-12 year well visit, 84% of pediatricians and 75% of FP frequently/always discuss HPV vaccination.
  • Compared with physicians who frequently/always discuss , those who occasionally/rarely discuss(18%) were more likely to be FP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1–3.5), be male (aOR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.1–3.1]), disagree that parents will accept HPV vaccine if discussed with other vaccines (aOR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3–4.2]), report that 25% to 49% (aOR: 2.8 [95% CI: 1.1–6.8]) or ≥50% (aOR: 7.8 [95% CI: 3.4–17.6]) of parents defer, and express concern about waning immunity (aOR: 3.4 [95% CI: 1.8–6.4]).

Addressing physicians’ perceptions about parental acceptance of HPV vaccine, the possible advantages of discussing HPV vaccination with other recommended vaccines, and concerns about waning immunity could lead to increased vaccination rates.

Sources and Press Releases
  • Primary Care Physicians’ Perspectives About HPV Vaccine, pediatrics, January 2016.

Ovarian failure caused by Gardasil HPV vaccine ?

2012-2014 studies on the association between human papillomavirus vaccine and adolescent primary ovarian failure

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

2014 Study Abstract

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, National Institutes of Health, NCBI pmc/articles/PMC4528880/, 2014 Oct-Dec.

Three young women who developed premature ovarian insufficiency following quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination presented to a general practitioner in rural New South Wales, Australia. The unrelated girls were aged 16, 16, and 18 years at diagnosis. Each had received HPV vaccinations prior to the onset of ovarian decline. Vaccinations had been administered in different regions of the state of New South Wales and the 3 girls lived in different towns in that state. Each had been prescribed the oral contraceptive pill to treat menstrual cycle abnormalities prior to investigation and diagnosis. Vaccine research does not present an ovary histology report of tested rats but does present a testicular histology report. Enduring ovarian capacity and duration of function following vaccination is unresearched in preclinical studies, clinical and postlicensure studies. Postmarketing surveillance does not accurately represent diagnoses in adverse event notifications and can neither represent unnotified cases nor compare incident statistics with vaccine course administration rates. The potential significance of a case series of adolescents with idiopathic premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV vaccination presenting to a general practice warrants further research. Preservation of reproductive health is a primary concern in the recipient target group. Since this group includes all prepubertal and pubertal young women, demonstration of ongoing, uncompromised safety for the ovary is urgently required. This matter needs to be resolved for the purposes of population health and public vaccine confidence.

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants

2013 Study Abstract

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, American journal of reproductive immunology New York, NCBI pubmed/23902317, 2013 Jul 31.

Post-vaccination autoimmune phenomena are a major facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) and different vaccines, including HPV, have been identified as possible causes.

The medical history of three young women who presented with secondary amenorrhea following HPV vaccination was collected. Data regarding type of vaccine, number of vaccination, personal, clinical and serological features, as well as response to treatments were analyzed.

All three patients developed secondary amenorrhea following HPV vaccinations, which did not resolve upon treatment with hormone replacement therapies. In all three cases sexual development was normal and genetic screen revealed no pertinent abnormalities (i.e., Turner’s syndrome, Fragile X test were all negative). Serological evaluations showed low levels of estradiol and increased FSH and LH and in two cases, specific auto-antibodies were detected (antiovarian and anti thyroid), suggesting that the HPV vaccine triggered an autoimmune response. Pelvic ultrasound did not reveal any abnormalities in any of the three cases. All three patients experienced a range of common non-specific post-vaccine symptoms including nausea, headache, sleep disturbances, arthralgia and a range of cognitive and psychiatric disturbances. According to these clinical features, a diagnosis of primary ovarian failure (POF) was determined which also fulfilled the required criteria for the ASIA syndrome.

We documented here the evidence of the potential of the HPV vaccine to trigger a life-disabling autoimmune condition. The increasing number of similar reports of post HPV vaccine-linked autoimmunity and the uncertainty of long-term clinical benefits of HPV vaccination are a matter of public health that warrants further rigorous inquiry.

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination

2012 Study Abstract

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, BMJ Case Report, NCBI pmc/articles/PMC4543769, 2012 Sep 30.

Premature ovarian failure in a well adolescent is a rare event. Its occurrence raises important questions about causation, which may signal other systemic concerns. This patient presented with amenorrhoea after identifying a change from her regular cycle to irregular and scant periods following vaccinations against human papillomavirus. She declined the oral contraceptives initially prescribed for amenorrhoea. The diagnostic tasks were to determine the reason for her secondary amenorrhoea and then to investigate for possible causes of the premature ovarian failure identified. Although the cause is unknown in 90% of cases, the remaining chief identifiable causes of this condition were excluded. Premature ovarian failure was then notified as a possible adverse event following this vaccination. The young woman was counselled regarding preservation of bone density, reproductive implications and relevant follow-up. This event could hold potential implications for population health and prompts further inquiry.

2017 Update

Premature Ovarian Insufficiency – an update on recent advances in understanding and management

2017 Study Abstract

Premature ovarian insufficiency is a complex and relatively poorly understood entity with a myriad of etiologies and multisystem sequelae that stem from premature deprivation of ovarian sex hormones. Timely diagnosis with a clear understanding of the various comorbidities that can arise from estrogen deficiency is vital to appropriately counsel and treat these patients. Prompt initiation of hormone therapy is critical to control the unsolicited menopausal symptoms that many women experience and to prevent long-term health complications. Despite ongoing efforts at improving our understanding of the mechanisms involved, any advancement in the field in recent decades has been modest at best and researchers remain thwarted by the complexity and heterogeneity of the underpinnings of this entity. In contrast, the practice of clinical medicine has made meaningful strides in providing assurance to the women with premature ovarian insufficiency that their quality of life as well as long-term health can be optimized through timely intervention. Ongoing research is clearly needed to allow pre-emptive identification of the at-risk population and to identify mechanisms that if addressed in a timely manner, can prolong ovarian function and physiology.

Read the full study (free access) on the NCI PubMed, PMCID: PMC5710309.