Just what would prompt your company to do this? It is contained within the literature that the vaccine IS made up of VLPs (virus like particles) in particular the capsid proteins which cover the virus and function to stimulate immune response in the average individual. The fact that such capsid proteins would be found in samples of the vaccine would therefore be of no surprise.
I am also confused as to why your laboratory would need to utilize a "proprietary" method in testing for HPV DNA. DNA amplification has long been used in this process so why would they not utilize what has become the gold standard for identifying HPV DNA? And why, if they are so convinced of their data and its accuracy is the name of the lab not mentioned?
What was the response you received from the FDA? Has your company also notified Merck of these so-called findings?
I can read the numbers you have listed for various condition but fail to understand the purpsoe of your posting them. The vaccine never claimed to prevent all dysplasias or cancers resulting from HPV and there are obviously a dozen or more other high risk strains which can still produce the results you mentioned above. The vaccine is obviously targeted at the two high risk strains which cause 70% of cervical cancers and it has always been recommended that women continue screening even if they have been vaccinated.
Again, listing these figures shows nothing. It does not indicate the strain of virus producing these results or other pertinent information. This is how people are mislead into seeing figures like this and because most people do not have anymore than a limited knowledge of HPV would think these figures indicated the vaccine's ineffectiveness which is nothing but misleading. In addition, only the very first notification to VAERS is accessible by the public. Someone could submit additional information and/or corrections and this information would never be seen by the public (another potential to mislead people and these misrepresentations have been mentioned in the disclaimer listed on the VAERS site).
Comment Reply
Just what would prompt your company to do this? It is contained within the literature that the vaccine IS made up of VLPs (virus like particles) in particular the capsid proteins which cover the virus and function to stimulate immune response in the average individual. The fact that such capsid proteins would be found in samples of the vaccine would therefore be of no surprise.
September 9, 2011 - 6:00pmI am also confused as to why your laboratory would need to utilize a "proprietary" method in testing for HPV DNA. DNA amplification has long been used in this process so why would they not utilize what has become the gold standard for identifying HPV DNA? And why, if they are so convinced of their data and its accuracy is the name of the lab not mentioned?
What was the response you received from the FDA? Has your company also notified Merck of these so-called findings?
I can read the numbers you have listed for various condition but fail to understand the purpsoe of your posting them. The vaccine never claimed to prevent all dysplasias or cancers resulting from HPV and there are obviously a dozen or more other high risk strains which can still produce the results you mentioned above. The vaccine is obviously targeted at the two high risk strains which cause 70% of cervical cancers and it has always been recommended that women continue screening even if they have been vaccinated.
Again, listing these figures shows nothing. It does not indicate the strain of virus producing these results or other pertinent information. This is how people are mislead into seeing figures like this and because most people do not have anymore than a limited knowledge of HPV would think these figures indicated the vaccine's ineffectiveness which is nothing but misleading. In addition, only the very first notification to VAERS is accessible by the public. Someone could submit additional information and/or corrections and this information would never be seen by the public (another potential to mislead people and these misrepresentations have been mentioned in the disclaimer listed on the VAERS site).
This Comment
Reply