[Garnet FalconDance]

I think what Robert's trying to get out is this: regardless of there being a control group and both groups equally apt to develop cancer, there really is no way of saying that without the vaccine the group that tested clean wouldn't have done so anyhow.

Cancer is a mutation of the body's own cells gone rogue - there may be genetic predilictions and environmental triggers, but in the end, the body either will or won't run rogue. All the predictions in the world cannot accurately say if a person will definitely develop cancer.

For example, I am considered at high risk for cervical cancer since my paternal grandmother died of it at 39 (she knew she had it at age 28). I dreaded pap smear results, especially at those ages. Apparently whatever genetic trigger I may carry is turned off as it is off for both my sisters so far. That's not to say I'm completely in the clear, of course, but there is NO sign medically.

So it may be that the women who did not develop cancer simply wouldn't have anyhow, regardless of having been vaccinated. Short of physically manipulating their cells to deliberately introduce cancer, there is no way a doctor can say with certainty that the vaccine prevented it. That is one of my main objections/concerns with this vaccine.

It appears the vaccine prevents a certain kind of cancer because it protects against a certain contributing factor. In my opinion, it is shoddy practice to say (as has been advertised) that cervical cancer can be prevented because there's a drug that may prevent one of the contributing factors that may leave a woman highly susceptible to those cancerous mutations.

Is it hopeful? Yes. Is it safe? Don't know. Does it really work? No way of knowing with certainty that it does without deliberate manipulation on the cellular level, in my opinion. And that sort of testing on humans is not acceptable.