Note also the appearance of the <20 age group in the latter report - these numbers were never available in the earlier ones, data only started at 20. But the HGAs in the under 20 group was declining rapidly before the introduction of the vaccine.
And in the 20-24 age group, incidence of HGAs peaked in 2004 at 19.2%, dropped to 17.6 before peaking again at 20.2 in 2008 (21.3, new method), and has now dropped almost to 1990s levels.
So although the headline might be correct, the implication in the headline, and the conclusion, that the vaccine is responsible, is not justified by the data.
The comment:
""The detection of high grade abnormalities reached historically low rates in 2013 for women aged under 20 and for those aged 20 to 24," he said." is just plain wrong. The 20-24 rates were lower in 1997 and 1998. An historically low rate for women under 20, when you only have eight years data, covering a period when rates in other age groups were falling too, is just meaningless.
