There is this caveat here: "All staff-written news reports are sent to quoted sources for verification of medial 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."
Just before that, is stated, "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."
So while two people must review all articles, the buck stops with Chief Editor, Dr Paul A Volberding, Go hunting for his particulars and you see this. And given that,"Dr. Volberding serves as scientific advisor to Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Biotech, Pfizer/Agouron, Shire, and Schering; and on the speakers bureau for Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Biotech, and Schering." .... you would think he would understand the term "accuracy", right?
Apparently not, because this week InfectiousDiseaseNews Alerts posted an article, which is solely his responsibility, which heralded the news that HPV Vaccines prevent anal cancer in women (pdf of news item, since I'd be surprised if it's not pulled.) The article states:
There were 27 diagnosed HPV 16-related anal cancers in the vaccine group vs. 85 diagnoses in the control group, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% CI, 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). Thirteen vaccinated patients were diagnosed with cervical cancer vs. 61 in the control group. Vaccination efficacy against cervical HPV 18 infection was 78.6% (95% CI, 62-88.7).
So let's check this out shall we? Kreimer's article, starts with this statement: "Anal cancer remains rare (Incidence of about 1.5 per 100,000 women yearly)."
So two people should have read Kreimer's article, ... the first sentence raises the first red flag. Given that Kreimer's study included just over 4,000 women, if according the Kreimer there are 1.5 anal cancers in 100,000 women per year, how many would you expect in 4,000?
Read further and you find that this study was about INFECTIONS, not actual CANCERS. Read the article very carefully and you will see many reasons why Kreimer's article really doesn't deserve a news item in Infectious Diseases News at all, but having ascribed virtues to the vaccine, which the study did not...., Dr Volberding needs a disciplinary reminder. With his CV, he should know better. And talking about his CV, note that (coincidentally) Volberding approved an untrue article about a vaccine, made by a company whose payroll he is on. Hmmm........
Was the article deliberately approved, or approved without checking? Either way, the result is the publication of a lie.
All a bit SLACK, don't you think?
But out of actual, scientific interest...., exactly how relevant are HPV anal cancers in women?
According to an accompanying commentary in the same medical journal, "AIN1 in an indication of active HPV infection, not a cancer precursor, as is CIN1. Mimicking CIN2, AIN2 is highly unreliable among pathologists and unpredictable for cancer progression. AIN3 lesions, by contrast, have a nearly complete association with HPV infection, but unlike CIN3, have a relatively low rate of malignant transformation in the immunocompetent patient. Many people with AIN3 die with it, not of it." The commentary also points out that, "AIN3 is often benign in hosts other than men who have sex with men, or immunosuppressed populations".
So, exactly WHAT was the point of the study in the first place?
Even with HPV in relation to cervical infections which turn to cancer, that word "immunosuppressed" comes up a lot.
Very few of us know anything about HPV other than what we are told. Some extracts taken from the minutes of a 1999 FDA meeting are instructive:
It is known that these patients all have particular cell-mediated immune deficiencies. Again, suggesting that particular arms of the immune system are responsible for either containing or failing to contain different subgroups of the papilloma viruses. As we look at these women over a period of time through these six month or so samples, what we also find, and other labs have exactly the same results, is every time we sample, you may or may not see the type you saw before. It may switch. For instance, we have this patient who had 6 plus 16, and then 11 plus one that was minor and we couldn't tell, then type 2, and then type 40, and then we had a type 4, but the others disappeared.
I feel that they are virtually ubiquitous. they are typically sub-clinical, persist in or latent infections. There are staggeringly large number of genotypes if we take the care to look. I might say that the reason these are typically not found is that people use generic cross-hybridizing probes, or have cut off their probe sets. If you're not probing for something, you are not going to see it.
"We have found a brand new HPV type for every 10 people that we have looked at. Philodelius and Ethel Michelle Diveres and zur Hausen and Shamen in European study of tutanius papilloma viruses have found a new papilloma virus for just about every other person they have looked at when they use the combination of nested PCR and DNA sequencing.
Robbie Burke's group, Jill Polefski's group, have very comparable experiences looking at anal papillomas or female genital tract. It is my contention right now that instead of 80 HPV genotypes or 150 that have been officially named, that there probably are millions of variants, virtually a continuum.
We feel that basically everybody has their own personal micro flora, that these are passively acquired or vertically acquired, not necessarily sexually, but certainly possibly sexually, and that they simply are part of the human condition as are microflora, just as we have microflora composed of bacteria and many other viruses, and that they basically are utterly ubiquitous.
So here we have a situation where Gardasil is actively promoted against cancer, when the article said no such thing, against a virus which is utterly ubiquitous - common to every person, and has far more types than they will ever know, because they don't look, and what they don't see, doesn't get reported on.
As seen elsewhere on this blog, far from being a virus which is only "allowed" to be transmitted sexually, HPV can be transmitted mother to baby, baby to baby, child to child - is often found in tonsils removed from little children,.. and so the list goes on.
You wonder how many more of their lies will come out in the wash, if someone cares to take a very close look at all the facets of their public statements.