RedFlagsWeekly is an excellent, mainstream website which provides all sorts of information vis-a-vis medical information, research, etc.
Here is a link to an article written by Mr. Regush back in 2002 regarding the cervical cancer vaccine 'already' going down the pipline.
Here's the link to Mr. Regush's article re: the cancer vaccine:
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/second_opinion/2002_nov25.html
Here is a snip:
"November 25, 2002
SECOND OPINION
VACCINE MADNESS
"The "Breakthrough" Headlines Have Been Running All Week About A New Vaccine For Cervical Cancer - This Is Medical Science And Health Journalism At Its Worst And A Shameful Example Of How Medical Research Is Taking Dangerous Short-Cuts And Badly Misleading The Public."
By Nicholas Regush
"Whenever you see or hear the word "breakthrough" in a medical news report, duck for cover. Chances are someones imagination is hard at work."
"The latest medical frenzy involved a vaccine aimed at cervical cancer. The study was published in the November 21 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)."
"The Reuters New Agency provided this lead: "A vaccine against a cervical cancer-causing virus can protect young women from infection - a success researchers hope will eventually allow them to prevent many cases of cervical cancer."
..."A WORTHLESS STUDY
"When I first reviewed the study, I couldnt believe the NEJM was putting this research on such a high footing - and that includes the embarrassing editorial."
"Essentially this is what the study is about: Of 2,392 young women who were entered into the study, 859 were excluded from the final data analysis - some for technical reasons and the vast majority because they were actually found to be infected with HPV-16 before getting the vaccine."
"Of 1,533 women who remained, half were given the vaccine and half the placebo shot."
"The results were as follows: No one who was vaccinated developed an HPV-16 infection or a precancerous growth. Of those who received the placebo shot, 41 women became infected with HPV-16, and nine of them had precancerous cervical growths."
"On the surface, at least interesting for an early study. But those results became the focus of great jubilation."
"But Ill tell you this: It doesnt take rocket science to see that the studys methodology is flawed to such a degree that it doesnt even deserve to be published in some throwaway journal. But then again, the NEJM has, of late, become a depository for bad science."
"Still, given that the entire world of health journalism seems to have piled on the bravos for this study and just about every vaccine specialist has come out of the woodwork to applaud yet another vaccine effort, I figured that I would seek out someone who has the guts to face up to the bilge that masquerades as science. I therefore got hold of Howard Urnovitz, who is a scientist dealing in molecular issues and a regular contributor to redflagsweekly.com."
"His first reply was that "this is a poorly designed study that fits all-too-well into the legacy of medical incompetence called vaccine research."
"Here is what Urnovitz had to say, pretty well reaching the same conclusions that I reached upon careful review of this study:
"These investigators initially enrolled 2,392 women to take part in the study. Immediately, 36 % were disqualified primarily because they had detectable HPV markers, according to the studys authors, who determined HPV-detectability by either antibody or PCR testing. In other words, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers."
"Then the study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1% to 93 %, despite the fact that it is the only test currently available in the United States to screen women for signs of cervical cancer. (A false negative result means that women who have cervical cancer or precancerous tissues are not being identified when they have a Pap smear.) The women in this study are only monitored for HPV infection if they show a positive Pap smear. But since even the CDC recognizes that the Pap test produces a wide range of false negative results, the HPV studys foundation - the Pap test - is so unreliable that the rest of the study is rendered highly suspect."
"Also, the HPV test is poorly designed. A positive result was defined as any PCR signal that exceeded the background PCR level associated with an HPV-negative sample of human DNA. This is a risky protocol because PCR tests are plagued with false positive reactions (a positive signal that is not a true detection of the target). Since the authors show no data or reference to data on a secondary test that confirms the gene sequence of a positive signal, they cannot conclude that they are measuring HPV."
"So here is what the study really amounts to. Again, Ill defer to Urnovitz because he lays it very cleanly on the line:
"The proper conclusion of this study should be: Administration of this HPV-16 vaccine reduced the incidence of an uncharacterized PCR signal from a poorly defined cohort which was strongly biased toward a natural immunity."
"Finally, press suggestions or those from the authors that young girls will soon be given at vaccine to prevent cervical cancer are ridiculously premature."
"As an aside (make of it what you will), given the great new honesty in medicine these days, it was noted in the NEJM that "some co-authors on the study are with Merck Research Laboratories which developed the vaccine and provided the funding."
Yep, I will ALWAYS have a passion in this field because of what happened to our son.