Big Pharma At It Again!

Check out this article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_he_me/cancer_vaccine

What struck me as a major flaw in this supposed 100% effective cervical cancer vaccine are the ages of the women used in the study 16-26 as well as the time frame these women were tracked, 2 years. Now you mean to tell me that one would expect women in this age group to develop cervical cancer. Without this vaccine how many women in this age group develop this disease? I would think it very rare. Also, in order to gain true knowledge if this vaccine worked for women so young, wouldn't one logically think that the scientists would have to follow their lives for 30 or more years, to get them through the natural timeframe of when there is the highest chance for womnen in the general population to come down with this disease? Am I missing something here or is this trial fundamentally flawed? And they are ready to break out the champagne and market this in 2006? OMG!