Turning cervical cancer into an infectious disease

In February of 2010, an article appeared in J Epidemiol Community Health titled: “Assessing the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to prevent cervical cancer: perspectives from Germany” blatantly refers to converting cervical cancer from a oncological disease into an infectious disease. The article was written by Professor Martina Doren, with the Clinical Research Center of Women’s Health at Charite-Universita tsmedizin in Berlin.

“For approximately two years now, cervical cancer has been “converted” from an oncological disease to an infectious disease, which is said to be preventable by and large by two vaccines licensed in many countries. However, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines differ from existing others, as the former target a condition which only in a minute fraction of infections will lead to serious consequences, but after a long(er) latency period. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that in clinical trials, the quadrivalent vaccine was tested in fewer than 1200 girls 16 years and younger.”

SaneVax Inc., wants to know the science behind the conversion.

In all her candor Professor Doren cited data as to what fraction of cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) grade 2 or worse and cancer incidence, respectively, are indeed prevented in young girls not infected with any HPV type prior immunization for periods beyond two years.

“In spring 2006, an analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN 2+ due to any HPV type among subgroup of girls/women (per protocol population) for all four vaccine-relevant HPV types showed an observed reduction of (only) 16.9% regarding these lesions3 (for a discussion of published efficacy data in Germany, see also Gerhardus et al).”

Dr. Doren continues with a concern the SaneVax Team has… that even though human papillomavirus passes through 90 percent of women in a two year time period, the HPV vaccines may be marketed as an ill-founded “magic bullet” just as HRT was pushed on unsuspecting, ill-informed menopausal women.

“Thus, the efficacy of the licensed vaccines to prevent cervical cancer is unknown; in other words, it is unknown whether vaccinations are indeed a “magic bullet,” a term also used recently to re-evaluate menopausal hormone therapy, the benefits of which were not “magic” after all. Perhaps the magic of female nature in this case is that most infections (approximately 90 percent) are dealt with very effectively and permanently in immunocompetent (young) women. Therefore, girls/women with HPV infections are highly unlikely to develop invasive cervical cancer. This is crucial risk information not transported affirmatively by various parties actively promoting HPV vaccination.”

In her closing statement, Dr. Doren states: “Thus, we are not able to appraise the contribution of HPV vaccines to decrease the burden of cervical cancer today in Germany.”

Compare Dr. Doren’s timely remarks and concerns to a statement made by Professor Raina MacIntyre, in a November 15, 2005 article titled: “Dr. Ian Frazer’s excellent adventure.”

“As to parental acceptance of vaccinating children against what is essentially a sexually transmitted infection, a lot will depend on how the vaccine is marketed. If it is marketed as a cancer preventing vaccine, there won’t be as much resistance.”