NP Rank:
The Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer
The Center for Media and Democracy has completed a four part series of articles, The Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer, about the first FDA approved human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine GARDASIL, manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc., alleged to aid in the prevention of cervical cancer, and a number of issues and facts surrounding the promotion of its use and HPV vaccines.
The web page containing the link to this series also provides links to related articles and resources for the series.
This series covers many issues of interest for those seeking more information surrounding the recent promotion of HPV vaccines and the products being sold.
From the American Cancer Society website:
HPV is short for human papilloma (pap-ah-LO-mah) virus. HPVs are a group of over 100 related viruses. Each HPV virus in the group is given a number, which is called an HPV type. HPVs are called papilloma viruses because some of the HPV types cause warts, or papillomas, which are non-cancerous tumors.
Can HPV be treated?
Treatments cannot cure HPV. However, most genital HPV infections go away with the help of the body’s immune system. Seventy percent (70%) of HPV infections are typically gone within one year and 90% are gone within 2 years. Treatments are available for genital warts, for the pre-cancer cell changes that HPV can cause, and for cervical and other HPV-associated anogenital cancers.
From an article I wrote in March 2007 entitled Public Health or Profit? What Drives the HPV Vaccination Campaign?:
In April 2006 and according to a PharmaceuticalOnline.com article, Merck & Co. Inc., a self professed global research-driven pharmaceutical company, under new leadership and poised to become, among other things, ”....(the company) that investors can look to first for growth among pharmaceutical companies....”, in the process of restructuring the company, decided to begin a new focus for the company, which was revealed at its Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
This article states:
“....(T)he first strategic action is the decision to concentrate research and development efforts in nine therapeutic areas; Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, novel vaccines, obesity, cancer, pain and sleep disorders. These areas were selected because of the opportunity Merck believes they provide, both due to the enormous unmet need that exists and because of the likelihood that the Company can make a real difference in discovering effective, safe and highly desired treatments.”
Since the creation of GARDASIL by Merck & Co., Inc., a push by the company to have its vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has become a reality, with approval occurring in June 2006.
Merck & Co., Inc. launched its ONE LESS campaign for GARDASIL, beginning in the fall of 2006 in November, on radio, television and the Internet, encouraging female consumers and mothers to ask their physicians about GARDASIL.
In its product insert for GARDASIL, on page 8 of this link, Merck states:
GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.
Carcinogenicity refers to a substance's link to causing cancer.
This document states that those in the field of cellular biology define genotoxicity as genetic poison, meaning there is a potential for harm at the cellular level.
Another quote found at the American Cancer Society web site states:
Although nearly all cervical cancers are related to HPV, most genital HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer. Most people who test positive for genital HPV DNA in research studies eventually test negative, often within 6 to 12 months.
In my previously linked article above and in the article, Creating a Market for and Testing HPV Vaccines, I raised concerns related to the motives of Merck, the manufacturer of GARDASIL and GlaxoSmithKline, which began a head to head comparative study, earlier this year, of Merck's vaccine versus the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine, Cervarix.
According to product information for Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline's candidate for approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as a vaccine to prevent the development of several HPV strains, its use is intended for girls and women ages 10 to 45. To date, this vaccine has not been tested in males.
The above linked document states that the duration of protection upon receipt of this vaccine has not been established. As in the case of GARDASIL, Cervarix also has not been investigated for its possible harm at a cellular level nor has this drug been tested for possible cancer causing agents.
In the United States, anyone seeking damages against a vaccine manufacturer for vaccine related injuries must first file a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims also known as Vaccine Court. Amendments to the rules governing Vaccine Court have been enacted as of November 15, 2007.
It is of interest to note an article, originally found at Drug Pipeline News, stated that in February 2005, Merck entered into an agreement with GlaxoSmithKline that would have Merck pay royalties to GlaxoSmithKline, with an upfront payment to be followed by an ongoing percentage of royalties from GARDASIL's sales, as settlement for competing patent claims related to the development of their respective vaccines.
Please note, at the 'sales' link in the previous paragraph, it states that pricing " .... and the absence of mandatory vaccination" are identified as " .... a barrier to rapid penetration in the all-important US marketplace."
The reality of Merck's agreement to pay royalties to GlaxoSmithKline would seem to highlight the necessity for Merck to garner as much profit from the sale of GARDASIL as can be obtained to offset it's payments to GlaxoSmithKline.
Since GARDASIL's approval in June 2006, Congress has been lobbied heavily to enact legislation to make the inoculation of girls mandatory, girls as young as 9 years of age, in a number of states, including Texas and California.
Click here for more information on HPVs and GARDASIL. An essay on GARDASIL, written by Dr. Moira Terese Dolan, of the Medical Accountability Network, can be found here.
Crowd Power
-
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States





Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (7)
at 09:45 on November 3rd, 2007
Thanks for posting this. Merck exists, as we know, to make money, not to cure illness... in that sense, the "One Less" campaign was a work of marketing brilliance, although disingenuous. (Personally, I'm against industry-driven legislation)
at 12:48 on November 7th, 2007
You're welcome, Jordan. An article you may find of interest on precisely the issue of industry driven legislation.
I would add, only after a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, was it revealed that there have been 11 deaths in association with GARDASIL and in addition, 3,779 adverse reactions reported as well.
A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) list of ingredients for a number vaccines lists sodium borate, commonly known as borax, often used in preparations to get rid of roaches and bugs in general and polysorbate 80, as ingredients in GARDASIL. Polysorbate 80 has been linked to infertility in mice in laboratory studies.
In an answer to the query whether polysorbate 80 can cause infertility, The Cancer Council New South Wales, after siting animals in lab experiments received more massive doses of polysorbate 80, with higher frequency, responded:
The results of studies clearly show that the three intermittent doses of the very low level of polysorbate 80 in the HPV vaccine is way below the level or time period showing toxic effect in animal studies.
This expressed opinion is more or less a concensus opinion among the members of the medical community that endorse this product. But another Merck product information source, linked here, states:
However, it is not known whether GARDASIL can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity.
Many of the possible adverse reactions attributed to GARDASIL are identical to those adverse reactions listed for sodium borate and polysorbate 80.
I am well aware that the field of medicine has always used poisons and substances not associated with ingestion or introduction into the human body, in its creation of substances to heal.
I am concerned that a level of accountability and responsibility has been misplaced when a product has been found to cause serious side effects in some who have been given this product yet, those who market the drug do not identify the specific ingredients that may be responsible for the adverse reactions that may most likely have caused harm, as in, the ingredient Sodium borate may cause this; Polysorbate 80 has been linked to that.
By not clearly stating the probability of these ingredients being responsible for the listed reactions in advance of distribution, seems a case of fear based action, on the part of the pharmaceutical company, meant to eliminate what may be categorized as the consumer's possible prejudices toward the above named ingredients who, in turn, upon learning of these ingredients' inclusion in this preparation, may choose not to use it.
at 05:26 on November 5th, 2007
Karen Hatter, you've convinced me you've done the work - it's authentic.
I think this type of story - big pharma convincing governments to give 'free' shots to schoolkids, is a very important one.
Awesome references, great stuff!
at 14:43 on November 7th, 2007
Thank you, Rob Walker. It is my understanding that the women and girls who were given GARDASIL, in the initial trial studies, were tracked for less than five years.
It is my belief that by dispensing GARDASIL free to school aged girls and given the small sampling used in the initial trial studies, less than 2,000, if I recall correctly, any and all women or girls given GARDASIL over the next several years actually become the long term study.
So, why not give some away for free? Any cost may be comparable or less than what it would cost to do the standard research, most likely acquiring a larger group of individuals to study and from whom to collect data as well.
at 05:45 on November 5th, 2007
Oops! My comment double posted!
at 10:11 on November 7th, 2007
Karen Hatter, thank you for posting this. Your HPV/Gardasil coverage on NowPublic is second to none, and I thank you for being so well informed and speaking so plainly.
I encourage all women (and the men who love them) to read as much as you can about the HPV vaccine and to fight against its mandatory legislation. Don't let big pharma have ownership over women's bodies!
Join this Facebook group: http://ubc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228767519
at 21:04 on November 12th, 2007
Thank you so much for your support of my work, Kaitlin. I hope all, men and women, will heed your advice and take action.
Since GARDASIL clinical trials involving boys and men are currently underway, with Merck anticipating filing for and most likely receiving approval for distribution of GARDASIL to boys and men some time in 2008, it is imperative men become involved in this issue for their sons and themselves as well.
This health issue directly effects us all, males and females.
The claim that GARDASIL can help prevent cervical cancer in females is an unproven statement of conjecture. The average age for the majority of women to be diagnosed with cervical cancer is 35 to 45 years of age. The initial group in the GARDASIL study and the age group targetted for marketing is 9 to 26. The girls and women in the study were tracked for less than 5 years after receiving GARDASIL.
It would seem to me that, minimally, unless the women and girls in the study were tracked until the average age of the onset of cervical cancer, at 35 to 45, whether or not cancer has been prevented cannot be assessed.
According to this article, cervical cancer among girls and women between the ages of 9 and 26, which is rare, is approximately 3 to 4 per 100,000 or 30 to 40 cases of cervical cancer per 1 million girls and women or .00003% to .00004% ( 3 to 4 hundred thousandths of one percent) reported in that age category.
Until a thoroughly independent study of this and all future HPV vaccines is commissioned and completed, which has not occurred to date, it is merely healthy skepticism to seek more information on a product when the company that is responsible for all of the good and glowing news regarding the product is the only resource from which everyone else is getting their information.
We, as members of the public in need of health care and medication, must come to understand that FDA approval doesn't mean a drug is not without it's dangers. All one needs to bring to mind are all of the various drug recalls over the past few years, including Vioxx, a pain reliever prescribed for arthritis sufferers.
It is being reported, as of today, Merck settled some 27,000 claims, representing 47,000 claimants and 265 possible class action lawsuits related to allegations of death and injuries by Vioxx, three years after removing the drug from market, for $4.85 billion.
There is information that tends to support the fact that the FDA was aware of possible heart problems associated with Vioxx, prior to the approval of the drug, yet, nothing was done to prevent its subsequent approval for use by children or to halt the drug from being dispensed to the public before possibly preventable injuries and deaths occurred.