Thank you for that link, Elizabeth.
It's telling that their logo is a syringe filled with $$.

The above two posters seem not to understand the dynamics of public health campaigns.

The reasons for FluVax and HPV vax being big earners in recent years are easily explicable.

For Influenza vaccination, the campaign for widespread vaccination occurred in the context of a worldwide pandemic, where the achievement of a high immunity rate was required to limit the extent of the pandemic.

In terms of HPV, this is a "catch-up" phenomenon - any new vaccine will have a boost in sales while everyone eligible is covered.

There is no need for conspiracy theories. OF course the developers and manufacturers have profited - just like any developer and manufacturer of an effective product does. Let's face it, even multinational homeopathic manufacturers like Boiron can make huge profits without even having to show efficacy for their products - or even having to include therapeutic ingredients.

Oh we understand the "dynamics of public health campaigns" all right and have found them to be mostly ineffective and frequently having nasty consequences.
Speaking of homeopathic products, Boiron's Oscillococcinum flu remedy has been shown in clinical trials to reduce flu symptoms by at least a week. The pharma product Tamiflu has been shown to possibly reduce symptoms by 24 hrs. The Oscillo. remedy is also WAY CHEAPER.
You should know by now that Homeopathic treatment is geared towards the individual patient. While there are some "condition specific" remedies the treatment needs to be individualized. Drugs are tested to be condition specific. Homeopathy has never been practised that way. Still, the Banerji Protocol for the treatment of brain tumors is condition specific and has been approved by the National Cancer Institute in the U.S. for example.
You should really limit yourself to subjects you know about. Homeopathy isn't one of them.

Apologies for the repeated messages - computer glich.

Yes, Elizabeth Hart, I am familiar with medical research jargon because I update my skills regularly at workshops and seminars. That's why I am curious about how you have made different conclusions to the researchers. Would you care to share your reasoning, and what data it is based on?

Sue, I’ve reached my conclusion that HPV vaccination is highly questionable based on this statement by Ian Frazer, co-inventor of the technology enabling the HPV vaccines, i.e. “Through sexual activity, most of us will get infected with the genital papillomaviruses that can cause cancer. Fortunately, most of us get rid of them between 12 months to five years later without even knowing we’ve had the infection. Even if the infection persists, only a few individuals accumulate enough genetic mistakes in the virus-infected cell for these to acquire the properties of cancer cells.”(1)
Also, the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) website notes: “HPV infection is very common and in most people it clears up naturally in about 8-14 months…Genital HPV is so common that it could be considered a normal part of being a sexually active person. Most people will have HPV at some time in their lives and never know it…A few of the many types of HPV have been linked with causing abnormalities of the cervix and in some cases the development of cancer of the cervix.” The NCSP website highlights that: “It is important to remember that most women who have HPV clear the virus naturally and do not go on to develop cervical cancer .”(2)
I’m flabbergasted that the HPV vaccine has been put on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the national vaccination program. I think there needs to be an independent investigation into this, but who can be trusted to do that?!

Reference for above comment:
1. “Catch cancer? No thanks, I’d rather have a shot!” Ian Frazer, The Conversation, 10 July 2012: https://theconversation.edu.au/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568
2. HPV (human papillomavirus). National Cervical Screening Program: http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/hpv

Typical distraction to ignore common sense solutions.
Kindly prove your claim about the Rotavirus vaccine over clean water. Just your opinion. Anything to keep adding to those pharma coffers, huh?
The historical record shows that the advent of public water purification and public sanitation was responsible for the reduction in disease outbreaks in Western countries.
You obviously belong to the crowd that advocated the "swat the fly" campaign that took place in New York city during the 1800's. The sensible voice said "remove the garbage". It seems you'd rather jump to the defence of those selling fly swatters.
The "flu pandemic" you refer to never happened and left many world governments pursuing the flu vaccine purveyors for a refund of millions of dollars of stockpiled useless product. It certainly tarnished the reputation of the WHO which now has the distinction of being on par with Chicken Little proclaiming that the "sky is falling".
Speaking of common sense solutions to flu, regular handwashing and vitamin D3 supplementation are far more effective and CHEAPER than vaccines.

Edward, re ‘estimates’ of cervical cancer deaths, a media release from The Royal Society of Medicine is pertinent: “Controversial vaccine trial should never have been run in India, researchers say”, 21 June 2012: http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr305.php
QUOTE
Professor Pollock explained: “This trial has clearly raised serious concerns for the people and government of India. The aim of our study was to look at whether data on cervical cancer in the country justify the introduction of HPV vaccination.
“We found that current data on cervical cancer incidence do not support PATH’s claim that India has a large burden of cervical cancer or its decision to roll out the vaccine programme.
“The lack of information is important because it means that World Health Organisation criteria for monitoring the effectiveness of the vaccine cannot be fulfilled.
“Neither the epidemiological evidence nor current cancer surveillance systems justify the general rollout of an HPV vaccination programme in India or in the two states where PATH was conducting its research.”
Professor Pollock continued: “It’s important to compare the burden of cervical cancer in India to other major health concerns, such as primary care, malaria, maternal anaemia and malnutrition, and consider best use of financial resources.
“HPV vaccine which is among the most expensive vaccines on the market is not justified as a health care priority for India.”
END OF QUOTE
Reference details for the paper: Mattheij, I, Pollock, AM, Brhlikova, P. Do cervical cancer data justify HPV vaccination in India? Epidemiological data sources and comprehensiveness. J R Soc Med June 2012 vol. 105: 250-262: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22722970

Edward, further to my previous comment, there has been correspondence on the Mattheij et al paper, cited above, arguing about the epidemiological data, published in the current issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (September 2012). Pollock, Brhlikova and Mattheij have responded, i.e.:
QUOTE
“…There are several flaws in the response from PATH. Crucially, PATH does not address the core issues of HPV vaccine efficacy and its costs. It is wrong to compare the vaccine with polio and measles where efficacy was known. Whether HPV vaccine will reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates is completely unknown and yet HPV vaccine is being promoted, promulgated and sold world-wide in the absence of absolute proof of principle, relying on proxy endpoints. At the same time, information about the evidence underpinning the decision making process is unpublished and not in the public domain. PATH has put the cart before the horse. Why conduct safety and feasibility studies if efficacy and indications for the vaccine are unknown(?)
PATH state that they rely on GLOBOCAN data and claim that rural populations have a higher incidence. Our analysis shows that GLOBOCAN and other data have important gaps and that Indian registries underrepresent the rural population and exclude many regions of India. Without a proper surveillance system and healthcare system we will not know whether there is a need for a vaccine or whether the vaccine works.
The opportunity costs of rolling out a vaccine trial where the efficacy of HPV is unproven has serious consequences for public health budgets and the household expenditure of the poor. Regrettably, HPV vaccine is already being promoted and sold to women and girls in India.
The authors assert that India has the highest absolute number of cervical cancer cases a claim that could be made for most diseases by virtue of India’s population size. The same claim is equally true for the number of people without proper sanitation, access to primary care etc. The government must consider the overall healthcare and health service needs of the population.
For all these reasons the Indian government is quite correct not to prioritize HPV vaccination as a public health priority.
END OF QUOTE
Reference: Letters, J R Soc Med 2012: 105: 365-367

Thanks Elizabeth

I hadn’t come across the RSM paper before; it did raise some quite valid points. However the rates in 2010 per 100 000 were 23.5, up from 22 in 04/05. This indicates an increasing number of cases and as the rate of screening is extremely low (especially in rural areas); it doesn’t appear that cervical cancer mortality rates are likely to drop in the near future.

Cervical cancer screening coverage, % (age and screening interval, reference)
2.6% (All women aged 18-69 yrs screened every 3yrs; WHS India)
4.9% (Urban women aged 18-69 yrs screened every 3yrs; WHS India)
2.3% (Rural women aged 18-69 yrs screened every 3yrs; WHS India)

Here are what I believe to be the most current WHO/ISO stats on HPV in India.

http://apps.who.int/hpvcentre/statistics/dynamic/ico/country_pdf/IND.pdf

In 2010 the annual number of cervical cancer deaths 72825.
Projected number of cervical cancer deaths in 2025* 115171
As yet we do not know how effective the HPV vaccine will be in the longer term, however as preliminary results from HPV vaccination show a 50% decline in pre-cancerous cervical lesions in young women since the introduction of the vaccine, If we were to just see a modest 25% reduction in cervical cancer fatalities that would still mean over 18,206 Indian women each year still living and hopefully enjoying a longer healthier life. Of course it is early days and if money was taken away from more worthy projects (such as other vaccine programmes, malaria programmes, or rural pap smear availability) to fund this I too would have concerns. I really don’t know if this is the case though?

Edward, you acknowledge: “As yet we do not know how effective the HPV vaccine will be in the longer term…”
You also note: “…preliminary results from HPV vaccination show a 50% decline in pre-cancerous cervical lesions in young women since the introduction of the vaccine”.
Can you please provide a reference for that statement? I have asked Craig Sinclair of Cancer Council Victoria for a reference previously on this thread, but he has not yet responded.