KUDOS are in order for SaneVax and their persistent efforts to find and expose the truths surrounding the HPV Vaccines, truths not forth coming from either the Pharmaceutical world or agencies of Governments world-wide charged with the over site of the industry, an industry that has consistently proven its devotion to “The Bottom Line”, willing to expend millions in damages, or let the government do so, after the fact, for their product damages as simply a matter OF DOING BUSINESS.
Far too many folks have bought into the notion that anyone, any organization who/that questions just about anything is an advocacy pest to be minimalized and ignored. Nothing could be further from the truth!
As a political operative I fully understand the technique and it works with those who won’t take the time to think or question, those who want to believe that their nation’s institutions, particularly anything to do with health and welfare are above reproach.
One would have to have been living in a cave for the past decade to hold that view.
To Their credit, SaneVax has had their response to a scientific article peer-reviewed, approved and published in the scientific journal, Infectious Agents and Cancer.
A recent publication ‘Potential impact of a nine-valent vaccine in Human Papillomavirus related cancers’ by Sylvia de Sanjosé et al was published in Infectious Agents and Cancer earlier this year.
A response to this article by SaneVax Inc has now been published on 8th May 2013 in the high profile scientific publication after being peer-reviewed and approved.
As per the Journal's editorial policy, they do not print what they consider to be anecdotal or rhetorical arguments. They believe these types of comments will do little to inform policy makers, regulatory bodies or the public.
Publication in this manner indicates there are those in the medical/scientific community who understand the HPV vaccine debate has not been concluded.
(A Must Read) Letter…
The recent Editorial by Silvia de Sanjosé*  is problematic from a variety of perspectives. Mainly, it attempts to portray a complex issue as a simple dichotomy between supposedly unjustified “anti-HPV vaccine activism” and alleged absolute science which has presumably provided indisputable evidence on HPV vaccine safety and efficacy.
In spite of much unwarranted and premature optimism, the fact is however those HPV vaccines have not thus far prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death). Instead, what the clinical trials have shown is that HPV vaccines can prevent some of the pre-cancerous CIN 2/3 lesions associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 infection, a large fraction of which would spontaneously resolve regardless of the vaccination status [2-4]. For example, in adolescent women aged 13 to 24 years, 38% of CIN 2 resolve after one year, 63% after two and 68% after three years .
Moreover, the validity of CIN 2 being a cancer precursor is questionable due to high misclassification rates and poor intra- and inter-observer reproducibility in diagnosis, as well as high regression rates [6-9].
According to Castleet al.  CIN 2 is the least reproducible of all histopathologic diagnoses and may in part reflect sampling error….more…
1. HPV vaccines have not been demonstrated to prevent any cervical cancers so why are they being promoted as cervical cancer vaccines?
2. If the majority of HPV infections and a great proportion of pre-cancerous lesions clear spontaneously and without medical treatment and are thus not a reliable indication of cancer later in life, then how can these end-points be used as a reliable indicator of the number of cervical cancer cases that will be prevented by HPV vaccines?
3. How can the clinical trials make an accurate estimate of the risk associated with HPV-vaccines if they are methodologically biased to produce type-2 errors(false negatives [2,4,13])?
4. Can a passive monitoring system such as that used by most vaccine surveillance systems world-wide allow the medical regulatory agencies to make accurate estimates on the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions?
5. Can an accurate estimate of the real frequency of HPV-vaccine related adverse reactions be made if appropriate follow-up and thorough investigation of suspected vaccine related ADRs is not conducted but
instead, these cases are a-priori dismissed as being unrelated to the vaccine?
6. Why are women not informed of the fact that in some circumstances (i.e., prior exposure to vaccine-targeted and non-targeted HPV types),
HPV vaccination may accelerate the progression of cervical abnormalities [4,26-28]?
7. How can women make a fully informed decision about whether or not to consent to vaccination if crucial information regarding HPV vaccine efficacy and safety is not being disclosed to them?
8. Should the medical health regulators and authorities rely solely on data provided by the vaccine manufacturers to make vaccine-policy decisions and recommendations [12,29]?