By Norma Erickson and Stephen Tunley
In a recent article in Infectious Disease News[1]commenting on the research published in the latest issue of Lancet Oncology[2], Jason Harris reported:
“There were 27 diagnosed HPV-related anal cancers in the vaccine group vs. 85 diagnoses in the control group, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95%GI, 51.4-79.7). For cervical cancer, researchers observed 28 diagnoses in the vaccine group compared with 116 in the control group. Vaccine efficacy against cervical HPV 16 was 75.8% (95% CI, 63.8-84.2).
For HPV 18, there were 20 diagnosed anal cancers in the vaccine group compared with 45 in the control group. Vaccine efficacy was 55.5% (95% CI, 25.2-74.2). [emphasis added]
Let us be clear, the research study showed no such thing as prevention of actual cancers and definitely not anal cancers, only HPV infections. There is a significant difference between HPV infection and cancer!
In particular, a review of page 6 of the study by Kreimer et al.,² published in Lancet Oncology reveals that:
“In the full cohort, vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16/18 infection detected 4 years after vaccination was 62.0% (95% CI47.1-73.1) and the corresponding cervical vaccine efficacy was 76.4% (67.0-83.5); p for interaction by anatomical site was 0.031: table 2). Vaccine efficacy against anal HPV 16 was 68.2% (51.4-79.7); 27 events in the HPV group vs 45 events in the control group…..[emphasis added]
Thus, the Lancet Oncology paper clearly states that HPV vaccination was protective against HPV infections and NOT against anal cancer. This is also clear from the title of the Lancet Oncology study, “Efficacy of a bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine against anal HPV 16/18 infection among young women: a nested analysis within the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.”
If the HPV vaccine did indeed prove protective against anal cancer, it is more than likely the authors would have indicated so somewhere in their manuscript!
Noteworthy, the commentary on the Kreimer et al. study² published in the same issue of Lancet Oncology, by former lead researcher on both Cervarix and Gardasil clinical trials, is very important. In this commentary Dr. Diane Harper states that although the HPV vaccine Cervarix may prevent HPV infections associated with anal cancers, the overall benefit of prophylactic HPV vaccination against anal cancer in the heterosexual male population remains unknown. This is because efficacy trials are lacking and anal cancer incidence is rare (2 cases per 100,000 population).[3] Furthermore, the end-stage precancerous HPV-related anal cancer lesions (AIN3 lesions) have a relatively low rate of malignant transformation in immunocompetent patients and, according to Harper, many people with AIN3 die with it, not of it.³
This type of poor and misleading reporting by Infectious Disease News¹ is very disappointing. The use of just two words – anal cancers – changes the implications of the research by Kreimer et al.² completely. What follows if such errors are not corrected is that the two words get repeated by others and perpetuated to the point where scientific fiction replaces the facts. Soon a vaccine against a virus becomes a cure for cancer – just like that.
One would think, or at least hope, reporters and journal editors responsible for ensuring the accuracy of scientific information would not allow such glaring errors in reporting. However, the Infectious Disease News commentary by Jason Harris¹ shows this is not the case. One has to wonder how many of such far from innocuous inaccuracies have been published in the past by a journal which:
“strives to be the global, definitive information source for ID professionals by delivering timely, accurate, authoritative and balanced reports on clinical issues, socioeconomic topics and industry developments, as well as presenting clinically relevant information on medical therapies for the benefit of the patient[4][5]” [emphasis added]
The Infectious Disease News website states:
“Article review process: All articles posted on InfectiousDiseaseNews.com are reviewed by the Chief Medical Editor and Executive Editor, who are solely responsible for deciding upon their acceptance, rejection or need for revision, based upon their appropriateness to the mission of the publication. All staff-written news reports are sent to quoted sources for verification of media accuracy. Quotes and other information in staff-written news reports are verified for accuracy with sources prior to publication. Excluded from this policy are InfectiousDiseaseNews.com website-first articles, which are not sent to sources to facilitate the rapid dissemination of this news.”⁴
So here’s the rub, if you want accuracy, don’t read the website-first articles. Indeed, it appears rapid dissemination of inaccuracy is more important than dissemination of accuracy!
SANE Vax asks, why is this allowed? Perhaps in answering this question one should also ask the following: Who does such inaccurate reporting profit?
Infectious Disease News appears to have a prestigious editorial board.[6] Chief Medical Editor, Dr. Paul Volberding is widely considered one of the world’s leading AIDS experts. In 1990, Dr. Volberding co-chaired the Sixth International Conference on AIDS, held in San Francisco, and has served on the international advisory committee for all subsequent international conferences. He is currently chief of the medical service at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and principal investigator and co-director of USCF’s Center for AIDS Research. He is also the co-editor of The Medical Management of AIDS, the most widely used textbook of HIV medicine.[7] Bottom line, Dr. Volberding of all people should know the difference between a vaccine that prevents a viral infection-related cancer and a vaccine that merely prevents a viral infection!
One cannot help but noting Dr. Volberding’s financial disclosure in which he declares that he serves as the scientific advisor to an impressive range of pharmaceutical companies, including: Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Biotech, Pfizer/Agouron, Shire and Schering. In addition, Dr. Volberding is also on a speakers’ bureau for Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Biotech and Schering.6 Finally, according to the Infectious Disease News Article review process quoted above 4, Dr Volberding as the Chief Editor is solely responsible (together with the Executive Editor) for deciding upon the acceptance of papers, “based upon their appropriateness to the mission of the publication”.
All of the above leads to a disturbing possibility that the commentary on the study by Kremier et al. as presented in Infectious Disease News, was designed to provide an outcome that supports the promotion of Cervarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, as a cure for anal cancers.
Where are the peer review and safeguards to maintain scientific accuracy and protect medical consumers from this type of pharmaceutical biased propaganda? Where are the voices of regulatory authorities who are supposed to keep this type of thing from occurring again and again?
Sources:
[1] Harris J. Targeting HPV 16/18 shows promise in cancer risk reduction. Infectious Disease News, 2011, http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/article/86993.aspx
[2] Kreimer AR, Gonzalez P, Katki HA, et al. Efficacy of a bivalent HPV 16/18 vaccine against anal HPV 16/18 infection among young women: a nested analysis within the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Lancet Oncology, Sep 2011;12(9):862-870
[3] Harper DM, Vierthaler SL. Who should be targeted for vaccination against anal cancer? Lancet Oncology, 2011:12(9):828-829
4 Infectious Disease News, Editorial Policy and Philosophy, Mission Statement. http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/aboutus.aspx#contact
5 Infectious Disease News, Meet the Editorial Board, http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/MeetBoard.aspx
6 University of California, San Francisco, Paul A. Volberding, MD, Director; http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=ab-01-01-02
Godfrey says
.INEFFICACY OF THE HPV VACCINE SEEN BY DOCTOR OF DEEP PERÚ
From its inception until the appearance of cervical carcinoma (UCC), takes on average 25 to 30 years, the research of this vaccine have begun in 2000, it is evident that the scientific efficacy of this new vaccine will be determined the years 2025 – 2030.
HPV not causes definitely the (CCU); at the onset of this disease involves multiple risk factors, including the suspected HPV, but scientificaly is proven by epidemiology and statistics that the sex is what generates this disease .: Mix in 130.000 nuns found not any UCC.
http://www.portalesmedicos.com/publicaciones/articles/1832/1/Epidemiologia-del-carcinoma-del-cuello-uterino.html
To accept that a virus or a bacteria causes a infection disease must unfailingly fulfill the five Koch’s postulate
http://www.xatakaciencia.com/salud/los-postulados-de-koch
1 – The agent must be present in every case of the disease and absent from healthy.
2 – The agent must not appear in other diseases.
3 – The agent to be isolated in pure culture from disease lesions.
4 – The agent of causing disease in a susceptible animal being inoculated.
5 – The agent must again be isolated lesions in experimental animals.
http://es.scribd.com/doc/44558220/MICROBIOLOGIA-1
Consequently, HPV not fulfill not any principle of Koch’s postulate. by not meeting this postulate, that is accepted as dogma in medicine, scientifically we must be ensure that the HPV is not the causative agent to the UCC..
Until August 2012 this vaccine produced only in the United States: 265.640 adverse events ( 264,162 females, 9490 males and 5290 unknow sex); permnent disability 8910( 8890 females, 90 males and 110 unknow sex), 1220 deaths (1011 females, 70 males and 140 unknow sex), abnormal PAP 4930, cervical dysplasia 1970 and cervical cancer 570
http://holyhormones.com/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/hpv-vaccine-adverse-events-reported-to-vaers-as-of-july-13-2012/
http://therefusers.com/?s=cervarix
The Vaccine efects advers reactions (VAERS) ensures that only complaint between 1% to 10% of the adverse effects produced by this evil vaccine;this figures shown are calculated according to the statements of the VAERS: to 10%.
http://www.noticiero.enkoria.com/2011/diez-menores-que-sufrieron-reaccion-adversa-a-la-vacuna-vph-d
http://www.pop.org/content/merck-researcher-admits-gardasil-guards-against-almost-nothing-985
Dr. Harper, who contributed to the development of the vaccine by Merck, reports that the vaccine was not investigated in children under 15 years and the vaccine given to children under 11 years is a big public experiment.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/53-researcher-diane-harper-blasts-gardasil-hpv-marketing.html
The vaccine was approved to give girls uncontaminated with HPV, Dr. Howenstinc ensures that the women are vaccinated with HPV contaminated, have the possibility to acquire a 44.6% CCU
http://www.newswithviews.com / Howenstine/james170.htm.
Merck did not disclose that the vaccine was transgenic, the Sane Vax has discovered, which is transgenic because it has been found that the vaccine is contaminated with DNA recombinant vaccine Gardasil (DNArPVH) and has raised its concerns to the president of the FDA Margaret Hamburg. The FDA replied that the vaccine will not cause any damage transgenic
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
http://bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=26075
A vaccinated child was ill with rheumatoid arthritis, which is an autoimmune disease. 24 hours after vaccination and found that the aluminum adhered to DNArPVH, two years after vaccination and in autopsy 6 months after death in a New Zeland girl Jazmine Renata which had recibed this deadly vaccines
http://www.mecfsforums.com/index.php?topic=9331.0
Management time to get market approval of a drug the FDA is at least three years, it is a drug for cancer 15 years, but the authorization Merck had only six months and the European Medicines Agency (EMA in English) only 9 months: To introduce the vaccine are using the marketing of fear
http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna-del-marketing-del-miedo-67210961.ht http://mujeresenaccion.over-blog.es/article-vph-la-vacuna -of-marketing-of-fear-67210961.ht
HPV is ubiquitous; lives in wild and domestic animals, pollute us from birth, is on the doorknobs, on towels, on nails, on fomites, in gloves and specula of gynecologists,. sexual intercourse is not the only means of contamination.
http://spa.myhealthygood.com/cancer-cervical-vacuna-contra-el-vph/investigadores-descubren-el-v
HPV also lives in the 400 nm outermost of our skin and mucous membranes. ,
If you live in our skin, our immune system produces cellular and humoral immunity is acquired or that our body is self vaccinatinge by PVHs living on our skin and mucous ..
http://www.conganat.org/seap/bibliografia/HPVToday/HPVToday007SEAP.pdf
The PVHs is not distributed uniformly worldwide. It has been found that in Canada HPV 18 only reaches 3%; is more often HPV 31, in my country Peru no studies have determined that HPV types predominate; Gardasil contains 225 mcg. aluminum and Cervarix 500 mcg, that produce the Alzheimer, Parkinson and autism, produce too neurotoxic and immune system disorders (Blaylock 2012) and Polisorbato 80, a powerful contraceptive, that in experimental animals produces sterility, atrophy of the testicles and disturbance organic and funtional of the organs of the reproduction; is carcinogenic and mutagenic; also contains sodium borate considered poison unused in medicinal preparations (NLM)
http://www.telefonica.net/web2/paramahamsa/vacunaninosalerta.html http://detenganlavacuna.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/gardasil-cervarix/
Have been discovered to date 200 types of HPV; HPV is not infectious, contagious; the intercourse is not only that the persons is contaminated
http://quimicaclinicauv.blogspot.com/2006/08/virus-del-papiloma-humano.html http://www-lab.biomedicas.unam.mx/smpv/queeshpv.htm
On 22-11-2010 FDA approved Gardasil for males aged 9 to 26 to prevent warts and cancer to the anus, is overkill
http://real-agenda.com/2011/09/16/vacuna-gardasil-contaminada-con-adn-recombinante-de-vph/
http://salud.aollatino.com/2011/02/02/aprueba-fda-nueva-indicacion-vacuna-tetravalente-vph-eeuu/
For the reasons since from deep Peru Huancayo, I believe that this vaccine is a fraud?, robbery?, swindle?, rough joke?.
The HPV is not scientifically proved for the moment that produce the UCC its effectiveness shall be verified just the years of 2025-2030.
Dr. Godofredo Arauzo
E mail: godo.ara@ gmail.com