It should be noted that there are over 100 different viruses in the HPV group...about 30 are said to be linked to cervical cancer. Of these 30 or so, HPV-16 is said to be found in 50 percent of cervical cancers. HPV-18 accounts for another 20 percent. The is good evidence to suggest that the HPV is already integrated into the DNA structure of cervical cancers.
In 1992, two very well respected molecular biologists, Schwartz and Duesberg questioned the common held ideal that HPV caused cancer. Among the various issues raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that "rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer."
In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that "carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV." And here’s the key point: "Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation."
Cancer prevention is not as simplistic as taking a vaccine. Maintaining a high level of immune integrity is key.
As with anything....follow the money.....
I certainly agree. I'm not addressing the efficacy of the drug and know nothing of the side effects, rather the concept that since maintanince of immune integrity is highly effective (to the extent one maintains the integrity of one's spouse), development of this or another effective drug isn't a positive development.