 Prof. Pollak, you have been working on the HPV issue. As you know, it is extremely controversial. The International NGO PATH organized, well, it is controversial what they call it. They said it was not a trial, but it was a trial in two states of India, Gujarat and Andhra Foundation, where they immunized young girls for HPV vaccine, allegedly leading to the death of seven children. It was controversial because of the deaths on the one hand, it was controversial because consent had not been taken from the parents of the girls and nobody had been told they were on a trial. That has been suspended for now. You have looked and reviewed all the studies that went into making of the claim for HPV. Would you like to tell us something about your study? Well, we really went back to very fundamental questions. One of the problems is we don't know whether HPV vaccine works and we wouldn't ever know for 30 years. So, basically, the vaccine is being rolled out on the basis of either property measures of outcome or teachers or what, but not actually on real absolute decreases in deaths from cervical cancer. Now, the rationale for using HPV is to decrease the incidence of cervical cancer in the community. So, in India, we were, we wanted to look at, first of all, the claims that PATH had made. PATH was doing the study in two states and it was interested in this study because it, interesting because it was claiming that the burden of cervical cancer was particularly high or above average in these two states. So, we wanted to actually understand the basis for the cervical cancer data, but we also wanted to look at the HPV types because the vaccines are only effective against a couple of the phage types and there are many different phage types. So, the first thing we did was to try and understand the cancer registration systems across India, which, as you know, it's a very big country, so they're very fragmented, but they're not universal and the reason why they're not universal is, again, because you don't have universal healthcare. If you had universal healthcare, you would then be able to have really effective mollaging and cancer registration systems, but you can't. So, that was the first big problem that we encountered and so then we began to, we asked PATH for the evidence upon which they had based that claim, but that wasn't forthcoming, but it did lie in several documents from IRC and other major global cancer organisations. However, when we looked at the cancer registry data, we found that the cancer registries themselves were quite problematic in many states, either because they were based on small numbers or they were very selective, they were coming out of hospitals or pathology laboratories and they were not particularly population-based, so there were issues about ascertainment, quality and validation, but we also found something quite interesting which is that cervical cancer rates, in any case, even given all these caveats about data, have been falling and are not particularly high in India, and particularly in the states that we were looking at. So, we were rather puzzled about the claims that there was an extraordinary high burden of disease or above average burden of disease, so we do feel that if the basic epidemiological work had been done, then they would have picked up that cervical cancer rates are falling in any case, and secondly, there's a real issue anyway about the data quality and monitoring, and I would put it to you that it's highly unethical to introduce an intervention if you do not have the monitoring systems in place to see whether it's working. So, first of all, there's no adequate monitoring systems to say that you've got a problem in the first place, and the data that you do have suggests that there really isn't a big problem from cervical cancer. You've got many, many more important problems, not least TB and malaria and malnutrition and diarrheal diseases, so that wouldn't be where I would put my money sitting here as a public health physician. And so, a lot of money going in there, but that would not be a priority area for me, and also you don't have the data systems. There's a real ethical issue about putting in a vaccine which you don't even know is going to work for over 30 years into states where, in fact, the epidemiology of the disease suggests the disease is declining naturally. We don't know why anyway. And thirdly, you will have no means of monitoring, let alone adverse outcomes. Even if it's successful, you don't know if it's going to work. And now, we have a similar parallel, of course, with our breast cancer screening programs in Europe. We introduced them over 20 years ago in Britain without properly good evidence of an effect in terms of mortality. The Scandinavians have now shown that breast cancer screening probably has no effect at all on incidence or overall mortality. And indeed, it may have several negative effects, both psychological harm, but also, of course, exposure to radiation, which of course, again, is a cancer hazard. So as a result of that, that's some 25 years later, we're now reviewing the whole basis of our breast cancer screening program. Now, it's huge opportunity costs we're talking about. If you put money into, and this is a very, very expensive vaccine. It's the most expensive vaccine that we have. And if you put money into a vaccine, you should know that it works. And if you don't know that it works, then you have to be aware that there are huge opportunity costs, because you're putting money into a vaccine program, which then diverts resources away from other essential basic services, which don't just include treat drugs I'm talking about. I'm also talking about staff time, staff effort, counseling, the worried well, and what are children and women to make of this. So I think it's a highly responsible action that path actually went into that area without having got the basic epidemiology right. And that's in terms of the cervical cancer epidemiology. The other thing is in terms of the HPV types, the studies in India are very, very small. And in the healthy population, they do not again support and need for this vaccine. And I do hope that your government officials will read the paper when it finally comes out. It would have been very nice to have had it published here in India. And I hope that people will take the time. And this is a sort of really very important work because the vaccine market is expanding, because vaccines are very attractive. They're attractive because you're going for a healthy, well, mass population of 10s or hundreds of millions. So they're very attractive to the pharmaceutical industry. And they're attractive in terms of administration as well, because you're putting them into healthy people. So you don't need to worry about their care or their aftercare. But I put it to you, it's a huge irresponsibility if we go down the vaccine road without actually understanding whether these vaccines are appropriate, whether they work, and whether we've got the systems to pick up adverse events, such as deaths or morbidity, and actually the long term effectiveness. So and it's not just HPV vaccine, we have to be worried about there are many other childhood vaccines that are coming out that we don't know whether they work and whether they're appropriate. Thank you very, very much, Professor Pollock. It's been most helpful having you here. And I think we have learned a lot. Thank you very much.