Missing and Skewed Data in an HPV Vaccine Study

This is an informal analysis of the Iversen et al. study and a commentary on the piece, which was written in the BMJ (of all places).  I did not take apart the statistical analysis of this article.

Lehman, R. (2016). Richard Lehman’s journal review – 5 December 2016. The BMJ. Retrieved from ​http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/12/05/richard-lehmans-journal-review-5-december-2016/

Iversen, O., Miranda, M., Ulied, A., Soerdal, T., Lazarus, E., . . . Luxembourg, A. (2016). Immunogenicity of the 9-Valent HPV vaccine using 2-dose regimens in girls and boys vs a 3-dose regimen in women. JAMA. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17615

​How do we know that counseling the participants on HPV transmission aside from the vaccination did not produce the decline of transmission?  Maybe the vaccine could reduce some strains on their own but for how long?  The titers were pulled in very short periods of the vaccine administration.

​This worries me the most.  The study only documented serious adverse events.  Biological measurements were not taken on the participants to track possible changes in metabolism or system functioning.  Further, ALL serious adverse events were deemed unrelated.  I have enclosed a screenshot of these developments, and they are shocking!  Many adverse events lists reoccur in the vax injury community and have plosible connections to HPV vaccine injury.  The process used to discern if the events were related or not is not described :/ Who did that?  Was this the opinion of one or many and what were the determinants?  This is not explained and should be.  It is also documented that participants were excluded from the primary analysis due to discontinuing the study because of an adverse event.  Why are these participants being ignored?  22 serious adverse events are listed; however, discounted.  Some seem reasonable to discount (Dengue fever) others are not (Induced abortion, premature delivery, thrombosis, epilepsy, etc.).  1377 participates made it into the final calculations, which means an estimated 2% had a serious adverse event.  What about other events that the investigators did not deem serious like syncope?  It was also uclear how long all the participants were monitored. 

​I have no doubt that there would be some suppression of HPV transmission whether related to the vaccine or related to participant’s reducing their risk factors based on knowledge gained during the research process.  I am sure one would get a titer response of HPV, which I am not convinced would infer immunity if one reads about the need of the innate immune response and the lack of the second arm activation due to the unnatural exposure to infections through vaccination.  I am chiefly concerned about the lack of descriptions relating to adverse events in this study.