Názor k článku Očkování proti rakovině děložního čípku: chystá se první antikampaň od skeptik - Vy jste ten text bohužel nepochopil. To není...

Vy jste ten text bohužel nepochopil. To není vědecká studie, která má dokázat, že jsou HPV vakcíny (ne)bezpečné. To je kritika metod a postupů, které EMA použila k tomu, aby se dobrala výsledku, že HPV vakcíny bezpečné jsou. Jen malá ukázka, jak to EMA dělá:

In all the vaccine trials apart from a small one, the “placebo” contained aluminium adjuvant, which is suspected of being neurotoxic. It is therefore difficult to find a difference between harms of the vaccine and the “placebo,” but the EMA failed to address this fundamental problem in its official report (2). It is clear from the EMA’s internal report (4) that the MAHs simply lumped the results from trials with a genuine placebo with those that had a potentially neurotoxic “placebo“. Clinical safety data. For the purpose of the referral, the MAH was requested to provide an in depth review of the CRPS and POTS cases observed within all clinical studies. To respond to this request, the MAH has pooled the safety data from 18 completed and unblinded studies designed with an active comparator group (either placebo or another vaccine other than an HPV vaccine, i.e. Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A) which includes a total of 42,047 vaccinees (21,268 in HPV group and 20,779 in comparator groups)” (4, p119 in the pdf, or 7/67 in the subdocument). We believe this constitutes scientific misconduct, but the EMA accepted it nonetheless, without reservations: “Strength of the potential association. The few cases reported from RCTs [randomised clinical trials] are evenly distributed between the qHPV and placebo groups which does not suggest an association” (4, p20 in the pdf, or p11 in the subdocument).