Public health policy should rest on solid, transparent evidence — not slogans, not marketing and not selective readings of scientific reviews, biochemist Lucija Tomljenović, Ph.D., said recently.
In a wide-ranging interview on the “Slobodni Podcast,” Tomljenović challenged the evidence base for HPV vaccination programs.
She told host Andrija Klarić that safety and efficacy claims are unsubstantiated, and the benefits of the vaccine do not outweigh the risks.
The widely circulated claim that the HPV vaccine dramatically reduces cervical cancer risk — by as much as 80% if administered before age 16 — collapses under closer examination.
Tomljenović has published more than a dozen papers on the HPV vaccine. She was also an expert witness in litigation against Merck, maker of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. In that role, she presented a systematic critique of the claims that the HPV vaccine prevents cancer.
She also delivered an overview of the science on the adverse events associated with the shot, and she presented evidence that Merck manipulated regulators and legislators to grow the market for its vaccine.
Claims that HPV vaccine reduces cancer risk based on flawed Cochrane reviews
Tomljenović explained for “Slobodni” listeners why the 2025 Cochrane reviews on HPV vaccines — widely cited by health authorities and the media to support the claim that the vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence by up to 80% — are flawed.
She said the reviews’ own data undermine their conclusions.
The Cochrane Library is often regarded as the gold standard of systematic reviews, she said. Mainstream health institutions often base recommendations on findings from Cochrane.
However, systematic reviews are only as reliable as the studies they include, she said.
According to Tomljenović’s analysis of the 300-plus-page review, the majority of epidemiological studies cited to show the vaccine’s effects — including its ability to stop invasive cervical cancer — had serious or critical risk of bias, according to the ratings of Cochrane’s own reviewers.
A systematic review is a “study of studies,” a high-level research method that reviews, synthesizes and critically appraises the available body of evidence for a given disease or health topic in a standardized and systematic way.
Risk-of-bias assessments in those reviews evaluate whether methodological flaws — in design, analysis or reporting — are likely to invalidate results. A “serious” or “critical” rating signals substantial flaws that make conclusions highly questionable.
Hellbound and Down 