Response to article titled "US-funded measurements of cervical cancer death rates in India: scientific and ethical concerns" by Eric J Suba.

Dr Eric Suba has been distorting facts and persistently disseminating biased and misleading views and statements regarding our studies over the past several years. His article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics fails to mention the facts that seem unfavourable to his arguments, and the ethical concerns are unsubstantiated by the evidence. In this context, we present the following clarifications for the attention of your readers, notably with regard to: (i) the study design and inclusion of a control group; (ii) the informed consent of the women participating in the study; (iii) the conformity with international ethical standards and guidelines, and (iv) the provision of screening to women in the control arm of the studies. We also highlight the benefits that are flowing from this research and the risk that misinformation may further delay access for women to life-saving cervical cancer screening.

Reply to S D Rathod’s Commentary on HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India.

The study in Osmanabad district, India , was organised to measure the effect of a single round of screening by HPV testing, or quality assured cytology, or visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) on cervical cancer incidence and mortality, whereas reductions in disease have followed repeated rounds of high-intensity screening in developed countries.