No we don't. Show me in the peer reviewed medical literature where this claim has been substantiated.
And since I presume they wouldn’t let women in the placebo group go untreated for HPV once they were detected with it, nor would they let them go untreated for cervical cancer, and since most cervical cancer deaths are due to lack of treatment, the fact that gardisil prevents a small number of untreated cervical cancer deaths would be of no help to it for the purpose of the study.
I don't understand your point. The studies showed that vaccinated women who were HPV naive (not previously infected) had virtually no cases of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix. Since the time from infection to the development of frank cancer is approx. 20 years pre-cancer, and not cancer, was the study endpoint. The vaccine is certainly effective.
OK, I suppose that the “28 deaths caused by the vaccine” may not be an accurate report, but that’s what was said. I’m guessing that nobody actually died from the actual trial.
The words “safe and effective” were used, and “safe” can only be asserted for the years of the study, we don’t know if there will be long-term effects that will happen outside the range of the study.
The studies show that Gardacil is effective in preventing the 4 types of HPV which will prevent a number of cervical cancer and wart cases. Relative effectiveness is a different measure, but important if you are comparing risk/rewards.
Driving 30 mph is extremely effective at preventing driving deaths, but overall that may not be “effective”. But really, the purpose of my quoted paragraph was to question the assertion that the gardicil/placebo group were undistinguishable regarding side effects.