Why did Munoz et al exclude women "with pre-existing
infections and women who do not complete the full course of the vaccine,"
ask six researchers with US National Cancer Institute. Is this also a sample of
convenience? And why was "infection of 6 month duration or longer"
used as an endpoint for showing a public
health cancer benefit asks a
different set of researchers, Stefanie Schenk and Jutta Halbekath from Berlin--when
no "differentiation" between infection and cancer is given?
Clearly the letter writers need to do their CMEs.
1 | 2
Martha Rosenberg is a health reporter and commentator whose work has appeared in Consumers Digest, the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Los Angeles Times, Providence Journal and Newsday. She serves (
more...)
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give
you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
(Or you can
set your preferences to show all comments, always)
