Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?

Does Shaken Baby Syndrome Really Exist?  Source: Discover

…is important to clarify that DISCOVER is weighing the science behind the textbook definition of shaken baby syndrome, not delving into casework involving children who do display “external signs of abuse.” This article is about the evidence for and against a specific syndrome, not the vital importance of child abuse prevention.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that as of 2005 there were between 1,200 and 1,600 confirmed SBS cases per year. While no official statistics are available on SBS prosecutions, Toni Blake of the American legal consulting firm 2nd Chair Services says that at least 2,000 to 3,000 lawyers and defendants have contacted her over the past decade to request assistance on SBS trials and appeals around the country. In 2007, she says, “we saw one of these cases overturned about once a month.”

 

As with baby Matthew Eappen in the Woodward case, SBS typically first presents itself when an infant is brought to a hospital or doctor’s office suffering a life-threatening condition such as convulsions, an inability to eat or to be awakened, or difficulty breathing. (SBS can also present with seemingly less serious symptoms, such as changes in feeding behavior.) The 2001 SBS textbook cites two studies (from the journals Annals of Emergency Medicine and Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology) showing that between 15 percent and 33 percent of SBS-symptomatic infants died, while one-third to one-half suffered permanent injury such as paralysis or mental retardation. Although many infants are hospitalized with life-threatening conditions, it is only on closer examination—CT or MRI scans of the infant’s head and ophthalmological examination of the infant’s eyes—that a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome comes into play.

“The thing we pick up on most easily is the bleeding,” says Randell Alexander, chief of the division of child protection and foren­sic pediatrics at the University of Florida at Jacksonville College of Medicine. “You see intracranial bleeding, between the brain and the skull…and then the other thing you see in about 90 percent of the cases is retinal hemorrhages.”

Once a doctor says that an infant must have been shaken, it triggers a hunt for the shaker. In one diagnostic step, the legal system is brought to bear on the baby’s family and anyone else near the infant at the time of the supposed shaking.

The symptomatic triad of bleeding between the brain and skull (known as subdural or subarachnoid hematomas), bleeding behind the retinas, and brain swelling is both the core of an SBS diagnosis and the point of departure for the syndrome’s skeptics. The medical proof that shaking alone can cause these internal head injuries is questionable, the skeptics say, when many other things, from infections to malnutrition to falls onto a hard surface, are known to be causes of similar symptoms in infants.

One such skeptic testified for the prosecution in the Woodward case but later changed his stance. Pediatric neuroradiologist Patrick Barnes of Stanford University said in an e-mail interview, “It is known from case records that SBS is misdiagnosed/overdiagnosed. It is not only a problem in medicine but a problem in the justice system.”

 

…Uscinski traced medical citations in SBS research back to a 1968 study involving rhesus monkeys subjected to collisions and violent accelerations. Uscinski already knew the study—it had been conducted by his mentor, Ayub Ommaya, the very same colleague who had brought him into the Woodward case. Uscinski says the study yields no firm conclusions about the consequences of shaking monkeys or, for that matter, babies.

Despite his confidence in the existence of SBS, Newberger adds that he has consulted for the defense on two or three SBS cases in which, he says, a “juggernaut” develops. “The department of social services sends out a social worker,” he says, describing the usual procedure after a doctor reports a possible SBS case to the authorities. “If a parent does not know exactly what’s happening, very frequently the first conclusion is that they’re trying to hide something. And sometimes parents are racking their brains, coming up with one or two possibilities. Then it looks like they’re changing their stories. That can be used to damn them.”

The Haynes family of Rantoul, Illinois were caught in just such a juggernaut. In October 2005 the father, Neal, was charged in a civil case with shaking his then 3-month-old son, Jake (not his real name). Although not accused of shaking the baby, the mother, Christy, was also charged with abuse and neglect (for permitting the alleged shaking). Jake had been hospitalized three times over two months for fever, infection, difficulty breathing, and symptoms of seizures. He survived his third hospitalization and returned home healthy, with his parents. However, when emergency room doctors discovered retinal and subdural hemorrhages, they concluded that Jake’s medical problems must have stemmed from his being violently shaken.

 

In the Haynes case, Uscinski rendered a professional opinion that concluded, “There is no question but that [Jake] Haynes had a chronic subdural hematoma.” As a chronic (rather than acute) case, by definition the “hematoma had its genesis weeks or months earlier.” Uscinski suggested that baby Jake’s breech birth could have itself produced enough force on the brain to cause subdural bleeding. This kind of wound sometimes doesn’t heal and can go undetected for weeks or months, he says.

F. Edward Yazbak, a Massachusetts-based pediatrician, examined Jake’s medical records and wrote a 51-page report for the defense that pointed to other possible causes of baby Jake’s hemorrhages, including adverse reaction to his vaccinations, a vitamin C and K deficiency, and/or a toxic level of histamine in his blood.

By late December, following the ongoing case, the defense’s Yazbak learned about Jake’s enlarging head size—brought about, he concluded, by a subdural hematoma that was in fact bleeding again. “[Yazbak] said this child has got to see a specialist immediately,” Fischer says. “If it’s unchecked, he’ll die.” The lawyers called a meeting with state child protective services, petitioning for a second opinion on Jake’s condition. Ultimately he was sent to a hospital in St. Louis, where doctors operated on the hematoma and put in a shunt.

The doctors “had gotten into the routine that it was shaken baby syndrome,” Fischer says. “And they could not get out of that routine.”

“For the jury…the defense needs to prove what happened to this baby,” she says. “Unless you’ve got the money to hire top experts, you’re probably going to prison….It’s guilty until proved innocent.”

Cheri Landers, chief of the division of pediatric critical care at Kentucky Children’s Hospital in Lexington, says that if an infant were brought into the emergency room suffering seizures and was discovered to have a subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging, she would want to ask the family about the background before rendering a diagnosis. “We would need to find out…was there any known trauma?” she says. According to Landers, a severe car accident, for instance, could explain subdural and retinal hemorrhages and consequent seizures. She points to a 1993 article in the journal Neurosurgery that examined the retinas of 140 children involved in car accidents. Two had hemorrhages, and both were in high-velocity side-impact crashes.

“When we discover no reason for the trauma,” she adds, “that is the point where we come to the conclusion that there is no reason for this other than shaking.” Landers cites a 2000 study in the journal Pediatrics that evaluated 19 Florida infants with subdural hemorrhages who were referred to the state’s child protective services in 1997. The authors selected nine of these cases and followed them up, reporting that every child was the victim of “inflicted injury, inappropriate infant handling, and/or high-risk social settings” such as a family with a history of domestic violence.

Neuropathologist Jan Leestma of Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, who testified for the defense in the Woodward case, has come to a different conclusion. Leestma reviewed 324 apparent or alleged child abuse cases from 1969 to 2001 and published his results in a 2005 issue of the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Fifty-four of these cases involved shaking a baby. He found only 20 percent (11 cases) yielded no evidence of any impact to the baby’s skull—such as a fall from a changing table.

Thibault points to a 2003 study in the Journal of Neuro­surgery that used lifelike infant dolls with crash test dummy accelerometers inside their heads. A team of four bioengineers and neurologists from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia then simulated vigorous infant shakings—as might happen in an SBS case—as well as shakes that ended in an impact and drops from one-, three-, and five-foot heights.

The group concluded that shaking their model infants produced results “statistically similar” to one-foot falls onto concrete or a carpet pad or higher falls onto a foam mattress. These results were well below reported thresholds for causing the kind of intracranial bleeding observed in SBS babies, suggesting that shaking wasn’t enough to induce SBS.

“It’s drilled into people’s heads that shaking will kill these kids,” Kirk Thibault says. “I don’t know that shaking can’t kill a child. I assume you can probably shake a child to death. I have no idea…. What I specifically look at is whether shaking can cause loads [on the brain] that…can cause subdural hematomas. The flip side of that is people abuse kids,” Thibault says. But he adds, “You can’t simply categorically say this is all nonaccidental. I say one case at a time.”

Neurosurgeon Jean-Sébastien Raul, an assistant professor at the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University of Strasbourg in France, says he has a computer model of infant shaking that could help clarify the controversy. In a 2006 paper published in the International Journal of Legal Medicine, Raul concluded that, biophysically, shaking alone can produce the kinds of subdural hematomas that are seen in SBS cases.

Raul’s group drew from published properties of human baby brains and skulls and pig brains and skulls—markedly similar, he says, in biophysical properties. The group ran computer simulations that examined the behavior of veins that bridge the brain and the covering tissue surrounding the brain. Rupture of “bridging veins,” he says, is a known and well-understood cause of subdural hematomas.

Raul says he knows the 2003 Journal of Neurosurgery paper well but argues that the authors looked only at acceleration inside the skull. “We are looking at the relative motion between the brain and skull,” he says. It is this additional factor, he thinks, that produces the bleeding inside the shaken infant’s skull.

Thibault points out that Raul’s group conducted computerized experiments involving unknown situations without first confirming that their model could reproduce known experimental results. For instance, in 1984 Nobuhiko Aoki and colleagues at Nagoya University in Japan studied medical case records of infants who had fallen and hit their heads. Some had died, some had survived. All, Aoki said, had subdural hematomas and retinal hemorrhages and thus could potentially be seen as SBS cases. “You first have to [run your computer model] outside of the vacuum of your model,” Thibault says. “At least demonstrate that you can draw a line and say this is a threshold…and now I’m going to re-create every single one of Aoki’s falls.”

In July 2001 Coffee’s client was taking care of his 11-month-old son, Mike (not his real name), whom pediatrician Yazbak later described as suffering from “multiple medical problems” including malnutrition and possible blood coagulation deficiency. On July 10 Mike stopped breathing. According to Coffee, his client attempted CPR and called 911 before taking the child to a Las Vegas emergency room. Mike ultimately died on life support. Bruises were found on his abdomen and back, and paramedics had found a cut under his eyelid. Postmortem examinations revealed a subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging.

With an existing criminal record that he feared would bias the trial, Coffee’s client opted to plead to shaking baby Mike. “I’m sure at some point during the failed attempt to resuscitate Mike, he was shaken, and as the local doctors were willing to testify that shaking caused the death, there wasn’t a problem getting the plea down,” Coffee said in an e-mail. In October 2007 Coffee’s client was sentenced to 10 years to life for second-degree murder.

Around the same time, the Wisconsin Law Review published a paper entitled “Shaken Baby Syndrome: Medical Uncertainty Casts Doubt on Convictions.” The paper’s author, Molly Gena, now a Milwaukee-based lawyer for Legal Action of Wisconsin, says her review of recent SBS decisions indicates the tide is beginning to turn.

“It started with the British cases,” Gena says, referring to a review ordered by the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, of 297 alleged child abuse cases, some of which were SBS convictions based only on the triad of internal symptoms: subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and brain swelling. In one case, R v. Harris, the court concluded that “the mere presence of the triad on its own cannot automatically or necessarily lead to a diagnosis of [SBS].”…

 

Advertisements

Whooping cough vaccine not as powerful as thought

Whooping cough vaccine not as powerful as thought

 

…Of the 18 students in the recent Cobb cluster, 17 were properly immunized with five doses of DTaP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, health officials said.

 

…But scientists are struggling to understand why reports of pertussis cases have risen dramatically since the 1980s. It may reflect more testing or diagnosis; it may reflect the cyclical nature of the disease. It’s even unclear how often clusters like the one in Cobb occur.

 

About 10,000 cases and 20 infant deaths were reported in the United States last year, but some studies have suggested the number of people sickened each year may be closer to 300,000, CDC officials said.

Experts believe the disease is underdiagnosed and underreported in vaccinated school-age children and adults who often have milder symptoms and whose childhood shots have worn off. They believe that adolescents and adults are spreading the disease to vulnerable infants and children.

 

…While no vaccine is 100 percent effective, some parents are surprised and angry that a vaccine they trusted is failing to protect some children. And officials with the Georgia Division of Public Health said too many local doctors are not aware the disease is circulating in the community and can infect fully vaccinated children.

 

Nationally, school-age children diagnosed with the disease are generally teenagers, which is what prompted a CDC advisory panel in 2005 to recommend an additional pertussis booster shot at age 11 or 12.

To try to determine the magnitude of the problem at the four Cobb schools, last month CDC and local health officials gave voluntary pertussis tests to 108 children and staff who were currently coughing, and 22 of them showed evidence of recent infection, said Julie Gabel, a state health department epidemiologist.

Despite the study’s test results, some doctors refused to believe parents when they said that their children had pertussis. “More than one said to the parent: ‘Well, your child couldn’t have had pertussis, your child’s been vaccinated,” Gabel said, adding that the department is working to educate physicians.

At the four schools, health officials think the outbreaks are over or winding down. But whooping cough continues to be reported elsewhere. Georgia health officials aren’t aware of any other current whooping cough clusters.

…“The real issue is what the rate of vaccine failure is,” said Orenstein, a former CDC official who recently became deputy director for vaccine preventable diseases at the Gates Foundation in Seattle…

 

PERTUSSIS CASES

U.S.

2009* 1,699

2008 10,007

2007 10,454

2006 15,631

2005 25,617

2004 25,827

2003 11,647

 

* Year so far

Source: CDC

Flame retardant creates hyperactive mice

Flame retardant creates hyperactive mice

 

A commonly used flame retardant routinely found in people and house dust alters behavior and brain development in mice, causing hyperactivity and adjustment difficulties that worsened with age.

 

A chemical that makes electronics and other household products safe from fire disrupts behavior in mice, suggesting that the chemical alters brain development. The behavioral effects were seen at fairly low doses, were worse at the higher doses tested and grew stronger as the mice aged.

The findings indicate that very early life exposure to the chemical — called deca-BDE — has lasting effects on the brain. The chemical may affect behavior by interfering with a neurotransmitter — a nervous system signaling molecule — called acetylcholine.

Polybrominated biphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are common flame retardant chemicals used in consumer products. Foam padding in furniture, upholstery and electronics can contain the fire reducing agents.

Deca-BDE is a specific, widely-used type of PBDE. Two other commercial PBDE mixtures — octa and penta — are largely banned or discontinued in the US and around the world.

This is one of the first studies to examine how deca-BDE might affect the brain. Other studies find brain development effects from exposure to other forms of PBDEs.

In general, PBDEs are released from products and contaminate the indoor and outdoor environments. Most exposure for adults and children is likely through food and dust.

Levels in dust are higher in US homes than in Europe, and may be particularly high in California, the state with the strongest furniture flammability standards. A recent study found that PBDE levels in California homes were 4-10 times higher than in other US homes and up to 200 times higher than in European homes.

The same is true for people. Americans have between 10 and 100 times higher PBDE levels in their bodies than Europeans and Japanese. Californians have twice as much in their blood as other Americans.

Male mice in this study ate a single dose of 1.4, 2.3, 14 or 21 micromoles deca-BDE per kilogram of body weight on their third day of life. Their behavior and  nervous system were evaluated when the mice were adults, at 2 and 4 months old.

The treated mice showed significantly more hyperactive behavior (locomotion, rearing and total activity) and decreased ability to adjust to new surroundings at both 2 and 4 months old. The differences were more pronounced at the higher doses for both age groups and worsened in the older group as the animals aged.

The chemical in your baby’s bottle

The Chemical in Your Baby’s Bottle

 

…One chemical that has received a lot of attention lately is Bisphenol A, or BPA, an ingredient in plastics used to make reusable food and beverage containers (including baby bottles). It also coats the insides of food and beverage cans. Humans come in contact with it mainly through eating, but inhalation and absorption through the skin have not been ruled out. Regular exposure to BPA, including among infants and children, is shown by its presence in blood, amniotic fluid, umbilical cords, and breast milk. Additionally, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention detected BPA in the urine of 92.6 percent of the more than 2,500 Americans examined; levels were higher in children and adolescents than adults.

While BPA has its benefits, like preventing interactions between food items and metal cans, it has the biological actions of the female hormone estrogen. Why should we worry about that? Exposure to estrogenic chemicals during the time when our organs are developing, specifically during the fetal and neonatal periods and puberty, is a risk factor for breast and prostate cancers, malformations of reproductive organs, infertility, and alterations in brain development.

BPA was originally synthesized in 1891; in the 1930s it was considered for pharmaceutical use because of its estrogenic properties but was abandoned when diethylstilbestrol (DES) was found to be a more potent synthetic estrogen. DES was prescribed to at least 2 million women to prevent miscarriage under the assumption that during pregnancy “some estrogen is good, so more must be better.” By 1971, girls exposed to DES in the womb had developed an extremely rare vaginal cancer typically found in elderly women. This caused the Food and Drug Administration to ban its use by pregnant women.

 

…Since the chemical revolution when BPA and hundreds of other common chemicals containing hormonal agents were added to our lives, the incidence of many diseases and disorders has been on the rise, including early puberty, obesity, reduced sperm count, hyperactivity, genital malformations, breast cancer and prostate cancer. BPA has caused all of these in laboratory animals. Last year, a study of 1,455 adults, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, showed a positive correlation between urinary BPA levels and diabetes and heart disease.

BPA is regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which considers 50 parts per million of BPA per day to be a safe dose. However, over 100 animal studies have found effects well below this dose. In fact, scientists have yet to find a harmless dose of BPA.

Why hasn’t BPA been banned? Mostly because BPA exposure cannot be associated with a single disease; the effects can be subtle and complications may appear years later. Animal studies revealed that BPA exposure during gestation contributed to behavioral disorders, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and infertility. In 2007, 38 international specialists on BPA signed the Chapel Hill Consensus Statement at a meeting organized by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences: Such a wide range of harmful effects, though found in laboratory animals, provided “great cause for concern” for “the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.” Experts at the National Toxicology Program agreed….

Formal Complaint Filed Against Journalist Covering Autism and MMR Jab Controversy

Press Release
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/complaint-against-brian-deer.htm
For Immediate Release:
Mar 12, 2009

Dr. Andrew Wakefield Submits Detailed Document to PCC Showing Examples of Erroneous Published Information

 Read Full Complaint: Submission to the UK Press Complaints Commission
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/complaint-against-brian-deer.pdf

A formal complaint against journalist Brian Deer was delivered to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) today on behalf of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the physician whose autism research has been the subject of several articles in the Sunday Times. Deer is accused in the PCC document of publishing incorrect information and also of having a conflict of interest caused by his involvement in the General Medical Committee’s (GMC) investigation of Wakefield.

“Journalists clearly have a right and responsibility to report on matters of public interest”, Wakefield said. “But they also have an obligation to make certain their information is accurate–especially when someone’s livelihood and professional reputation are at stake. Mr. Deer has failed miserably as a reporter and has done great harm to me and many others conducting autism research.”

Information contained in the PCC filing listed numerous instances of Deer’s failure to obtain and report accurate information for a story in the February 9, 2009 Sunday Times that wrongly accused Wakefield of distorting data. As an example, Deer wrote that no doctors have been able to replicate Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study that showed intestinal inflammation in children with autism. However, in the past four years three separate studies have all shown a similar association between autism and intestinal inflammation in children.

“Time and again, Mr. Deer cherry-picks information and ignores data that contradict his premise,” Wakefield added. “Further, he shouldn’t even be writing about my case since he is on record as having filed the original complaint with the GMC and has become complicit in the agency’s investigation by supplying documents and evidence from children’s medical records. This is hardly impartial journalism.”

Although Deer has consistently denied he is the source of the first complaint that launched the GMC”s investigation on Feb. 24, 2004, three days after he wrote his first article on Wakefield Deer contacted the GMC caseworker Tim Cox-Brown via email: “I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct…”.

Deer, writing for a major publication under the pretense of objectivity, has also made numerous slurs on his website against Dr. Wakefield and his supporters. The biases, conflicts of interest, and inaccurate information used by Deer are all detailed in the complaint delivered to the PCC.

Wakefield, who now lives in Austin, Texas, is continuing his research at Thoughtful House Center for Children dedicated to serving children with autism and other developmental disorders. Wakefield and his colleague from Thoughtful House, Dr. Bryan Jepson, are speaking at the Treating Autism 2nd International Biomedical Conference and Exhibition at the Bournemouth International Centre, Mar. 12-14.

About Thoughtful House: Thoughtful House takes a multi-disciplinary approach to treating autism and supports a ‘safety-first’ vaccination policy that gives parents the option of choosing a stand-alone measles vaccine for their children. The research program at Thoughtful House is dedicated to understanding the biological origins of childhood developmental disorders and establishing best practices in treating children affected by these disorders.

Contact: James C. Moore
512.300.9232
media@thoughtfulhouse.org

Cervarix vaccine causing severe reactions

Cervarix vaccine causing severe reactions

MORE than 1300 schoolgirls have experienced adverse reactions to the controversial cervical cancer jab.

Doctors have reported girls aged just 12 and 13 have suffered paralysis, convulsions and sight problems after being given the vaccine.

Dozens were described as having pain “in extremity” while others suffered from nausea, muscle weakness, fever, dizziness and numbness.

The vaccine is being given to girls under a government program to prevent women from developing cervical cancer. Ministers say it will ultimately save 700 lives a year.

Some have dubbed it the “promiscuity jab” because it is given to girls to protect against the sexually-transmitted HPV virus, which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

Last night campaigners called for the vaccination campaign to be suspended.

But government health experts insisted the Cervarix vaccine was safe and that the 1340 reports was to be expected, given that more than 700,000 girls were vaccinated last year.

They also said many of the reactions resulted from the act of injection, and said there was no evidence that the jab caused any of the serious conditions, such as paralysis.

Cancer charities urged parents to continue allowing their daughters to have the jabs, saying any risks were so minor and unproven that they could not outweigh the benefit of possibly saving lives.

The vaccination program of young secondary school girls began in September last year following clinical trials on more than 18,000 women under the age of 26.

Critics have claimed that not enough pre-pubescent girls were involved.

The vaccine, which is administered in three doses, is also being given to girls aged 17 and 18. By 2011, all those under the age of 18 will have been vaccinated.

The drug safety watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said doctors had made 1340 reports listing 2891 different adverse effects.

Most were minor complaints such as rashes, swelling on the injection site, pain or allergic reactions, but there were many more worrying problems.

Four girls had convulsions, one had a seizure and one had an epileptic fit. There were several cases of paralysis.

There were almost 20 cases of blurred vision and one girl was reported as developing anorexia.

Researchers Suggest Insufficient Evidence of Efficacy of HPV Vaccine

Researchers Suggest Insufficient Evidence of Efficacy of HPV Vaccine

(NaturalNews) There is not enough evidence to confidently state that two popular vaccines against the human papillomavirus (HPV) will reliably prevent against the development of cervical cancer, according to two articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” wrote Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, in the first article. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”

Haug noted that Merck’s Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKlein’s Cervarix have only been studied clinically for six and a half years at the most, and have only been on the market since 2006. This means that researchers still do not know if the vaccines are effective against HPV over the long term, or what cancer-related side effects they might have. For example, protecting the body from infection with certain HPV strains might have unforeseen immunological side effects, reducing the body’s resistance to other varieties.

Due to the newness of both vaccines, it is also not yet been possible to see whether they actually reduce cervical cancer rates. Normally, it takes years of HPV infection before cancer can develop – more time than either drug has been studied.

In the second article, a pair of Harvard researchers noted that HPV vaccination is not necessarily a cost-effective way to protect against cervical cancer. Current screening methods such as Pap smears have been very effective in reducing the death rate of cervical cancer already, but such tests must continue even after receiving an HPV vaccine. Even at their best, the vaccines do not protect against all cervical cancer strains that can cause cancer; a woman who has already been exposed to one of the strains in the vaccine will get no benefit from it.

“I believe the vaccine is a great advance,” said Philip Davies of the European Cervical Cancer Association, “but we have to implement it properly to get the benefits, and that hasn’t happened.”