According to IMAC “In New Zealand cervical cancer is the third most common cause of cancer in women aged 25 - 44 years.” As usual, no reference. (pdf of IMAC page uplifted here, see page one) Really. That’s very interesting, because the Auckland District Health Board’s March 2009 4 mb “Nova” Newsletter says differently. (1st 4 pages uplifted here, because they remove it when the next one comes out.) It says, “for Maori women cervical cancer is the third most common cancer and it is often only caught in the later stages. For New Zealand women overall, it is the ninth most common cancer.”
In other words, whether Cervical Cancer is a third most common cancer, or the ninth, and whether or not it kills, is in the hands of the individual. So where did this data come from?
Scouting around the Ministry of Health website I found a November 27, 2006 letter from Dr Keith Grimwood, really keen to add four new vaccines into the schedule, in which he states on page 5: “In New Zealand cervical cancer is the third most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer related death amongst Maori women. Among non-Maori women, cervical cancer is the ninth most common cancer, but a less common cause of death.”
Looking around at other New Zealand information relating to risk of acquiring HPV infection, a 1992 study done in Wellington found, “The main risk factor for HPV infection, particularly with types 16 and/or 18 was multiple >5 sexual partners in the last year, independent of other variables.”
In other words, if girls have sex with lots of partners in one year, that’s going to be the main factor which greatly increases their risks of cervical cancer. Let’s not tell anyone that though. Can’t give the prudes any ammunition! “Out of date” they will cry.
Doesn’t it strike you as interesting that when it comes to a vaccine campaign, you will ALWAYS be told crafted pc-speak, as well as the worst case scenario, whether or not you even fit into that category?
You certainly won't get told something like this:
"People are better at estimating their own risk of an illness if they stick to personal experience rather than number crunching, say researchers.
By asking yourself how many of your friends and relatives have had a disease, you will reach a better judgement of personal risk, they say.
In comparison, those who rely on media reports of statistics can be way off mark, the German and Swiss team found."
I'd also say that if you rely on IMAC data, you can be way off mark as well.