The SaneVax Team needs to understand why consultants paid by the pharmaceutical trade seem to be mistreatment the planet Health Organization (WHO) and therefore the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to market a ethical code of HPV testing to plug "cervical cancer vaccines" at the expense of women's health. square measure HPV immunogen makers, the NCI and UN agency frightened of what a sensitive and correct HPV check would disclose if one were used for post-vaccination observation and patient care? According to a recent article in Cancer Medicine1, a bunch of researchers from Shanghai reportable that the usually used Digene (Qiagen) HPV HC2 check kit promoted by the NCI known solely fifty seven.6% of the 624 infections by one bad human papillomavirus (HPV). Is it coincidence that the NCI is one in all the inventors of the "cancer vaccine" Gardasil? may be a fifty seven.6% success rate adequate for your family's healthcare? The authors conjointly introduced a unique approach to spot varied combos of multiple HPV infections, demonstrating that up to five HPV genotypes in one single sample can be valid by direct polymer sequencing. The team, headed by faculty member G.F. Hong, stressed the importance of employing a sensitive and specific technique if HPV testing is to be used because the primary cervical screening followed by Papanicolaou biology for cervical cancer detection. The authors stated: "As in several developing countries, China wants a financially property and reliable screening system to scale back the cervical cancer rate. a way to integrate such associate degree analytically reliable molecular check into a system supplemented by cytopathology-based cervical screen for cervical cancer hindrance should be determined by medical and scientific professionals with primary concern regarding improvement of women's health care underneath varied resource settings instead of by (the) business agenda of the trade." In stark distinction, Dr. Joakim Dillner, head of the UN agency immunogen team and a paid adviser of Merck/SPMSD (a manufacturer of HPV vaccines), brazenly promoted a ethical code of HPV testing, one for immunogen development and one for patient care once creating this statement: "In vaccinology, a high analytical sensitivity is required as failure to observe prevailing infections at trial entry could end in false immunogen failures in vaccination trials. It ought to be noted that HPV tests employed in cervical cancer screening programs have totally different needs for analysis, since for that purpose solely HPV infections related to best cervical intraepithelial pathological process or cancer square measure relevant and not the transient infections that don't produce to clinically purposeful malady. Since the latter square measure characterised by low infective agent masses, HPV screening assays don't have as high demands on analytical sensitivity."2 Informed medical shoppers would really like to raise the UN agency immunogen team: 1.If a check with high analytical sensitivity was used throughout clinical trials solely, would the less sensitive tests used for post-vaccination police investigation and patient care generate a group of false negative results which could by artificial means raise the effectualness rating of the immunogen by solely characteristic fifty seven.6% of HPV infections? 2.If solely the less sensitive HPV check results square measure helpful in evaluating clinically purposeful malady, would the analytically sensitive HPV check used upon test entry prove the vaccines solely were effective in preventing diseases that aren't clinically meaningful? The truth is partly unconcealed in another statement among the UN agency team's report after they wrote: "SiHa cells has regarding one copy of HPV sixteen per cell..."2 The fact is that SiHa cells may be a culture cell line of human cervical cancer. that the authors knew that human cervical cancers could contain as very little jointly copy of HPV particle per single neoplastic cell after they created the statement: "HPV screening assays don't have as high demands on analytical sensitivity" This cluster of HPV immunogen promoters appears to be mistreatment the name of the planet Health Organization to mislead the general public into acceptive associate degree inaccurate HPV check for patient care whereas making a ethical code to obscure the facts regarding the analysis of HPV immunogen effectualness, to not mention HPV immunogen safety. This same UN agency publication stated: "Accurate and internationally comparable HPV polymer detection and genotyping methodology is an important part each within the analysis of HPV vaccines and within the effective implementation and observation of HPV vaccination programs. Genotyping assays used nowadays dissent in their analytical performance with relevance type-specific sensitivity and specificity." In different words, the immunogen team knew that the NCI and therefore the GardasilR manufacturer failed to use associate degree FDA-approved HPV check, or associate degree correct internationally comparable HPV polymer detection and genotyping methodology for analysis of the vaccine's effectualness throughout the clinical trials as a result of there's none. If there's still no satisfactory HPV polymer detection and genotyping technique, however square measure medical shoppers alleged to trust test results that were evaluated mistreatment tests ways haphazardly selected by the immunogen developer before 2006? In yet one more pointers article, a similar Dr. Joakim Dillner, beside Dr. C.J.L.M. Meijer {and several|and a number of different|and several other} other trade paid consultants tried to justify mistreatment less sensitive HPV tests for patient management by stating: "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Hybrid Capture two (hc2; Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) and GP5+/6+-PCR protein bioassay (GP5+/6+-PCR EIA) have repeatedly incontestable clinical sensitivity of regarding ninety.95% for the detection of CIN two in giant prospective cohorts or irregular controlled trials."3 Any lady with a rudimentary information of cervical cancer screening is aware of a "90.95% rate for the detection of CIN two lesions" is also a check to brazenly invite medical malpractice; coupled with the actual fact that CIN two is well-known as being a self-reversing entity. however might Dr. Meijer, a faculty member of pathology and leading author of the paper, have supported such a recommendation? It seems Dr. Meijer may be a major shareowner of Digene business firmoration as printed in Digene Corp.4 10-K For 6/30/98 EX-10.37. Digene Corporation was sold to Qiagen, a Dutch company, for $1.6 billion in 2007. To total it all up, a research team in Shanghai is functioning diligently to search out a science-based sensitive and reliable HPV check for cervical screening to scale back cervical cancer mortality in China. Meanwhile, it seems immunogen inventors and industry-paid consultants square measure mistreatment the offices of the UN agency and therefore the NCI to market a ethical code to justify hindrance of clinically insignificant HPV infections with a 'cancer vaccine' beside a not too sensitive HPV polymer check for post-vaccination police investigation and patient management at the expense of women's health. Are these folks afraid associate degree correct and reliable HPV check would show medical shoppers their miracle immunogen isn't such a miracle when all? If so, privy medical shoppers can hold people who wittingly wrote inappropriate practice pointers answerable for the hurt their 'expert opinions' cause.
Naturally Cure Any Type Of Cancer Guaranteed. CLICK HERE
