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* [1] 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 [5].
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. [7] CIN 2 is the least reproducible of all histopathologic
diagnoses and may in part reflect sampling error….more…
QUESTIONS:
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]?
ADDITIONAL READINGS:
 |
Friday, May 10, 2013
KUDOS Are In Order for SaneVax and their Persistent Efforts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment