Vaccine advocate highlights concerns over publication

Nov 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Comments

I am pleased that your reporter Gail Johnson included my comments about the benefits of the human papillomavirus vaccine in her article [“ Researchers advocate HPV vaccine scrutiny”, November 1-8].

I want to provide some new information that confirms my concerns about the research methods used by Lucija Tomljenovic and Chris Shaw for their paper regarding the deaths of two young women who had received the HPV vaccine. This paper has now been reviewed by the U.S. Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network, which is a Centers for Disease Control–funded network established in 2001 with six participating medical research centres involved in immunization-safety assessment.

The CISA has concluded that there are a number of methodological flaws with the publication and that it lacks the evidence to support the authors’ conclusions. This assessment is available on the Centers for Disease Control website at www.cdc.gov/ under “vaccine safety technical reports”.

Numerous credible studies have shown that both HPV vaccines used in Canada are safe and highly effective. The vaccine is estimated to prevent about 70 percent of cancers to the cervix.

I encourage all girls eligible for the school program who are in grades 6 through 12 in B.C. and young women born in 1991, 1992, and 1993 to get vaccinated against HPV infection.

> Dr. Monika Naus / Medical Director, Immunization, B.C. Centre for Disease Control

Comments (4) Add New Comment
M S R
Nov 22, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Here is a link to the report Dr. Naus cites (I find navigating the CDC website torturous and would like to spare others the pain): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/cisa/technical_report.html
1
3
Rating: -2
PutinReloaded
Nov 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm
The CISA is a political organizaion, not a scientific body. They can shove their political conclussions where the sun don't shine.
1
2
Rating: -1
journeyer
Nov 23, 2012 at 4:31 pm
The CDC's evaluation was made on the basis of a significant misreading of what the ms in question actually did, and didn't, say. They also failed to appreciated that it was a "case study" and thus didn't have controls. We clearly stated this and noted that it was merely an hypothesis generating study. We are now in the process of (a) begining a study to replicate the data w ith a much larger sample, including controls, and (b) providing much more technical detail than normally cited in such papers about positive and negative immunochemistry procedures. We are also hoping that other investigators will undertake similar studies to either lend support, or refute, our study.
0
3
Rating: -3
RealitySlap
Nov 25, 2012 at 10:01 am
Since when are deaths considered "safe"?
2
2
Rating: 0
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.