NEJM Questions Gardasil Vaccine from Merck. Why Doesn't the AAP?
From the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine:
Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. Several strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer, and two vaccines directed against the currently most important oncogenic strains (i.e., the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes) have been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that the overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown.
How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response?
Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening.
How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes.
So why has the AAP made Merck billions by adding this unproven vaccine to it's "recommended" (meaning the doc is going to give it to your daughter unless you put up a stink) schedule? Click HERE for the full article.
What does this have to do with autism. this there a connections with Autism
Posted by: mary | August 30, 2008 at 09:43 PM
i am torn on this topic. i do agree with more testing on all vaccines. and i do not agree with the "recomended" schedule. but i have HPV and the things i have gone through i would not wish on anyone. so hopefully there will be more research done on this vaccine, because i feel it is important and i would want my daughter to get this when i feel the time is right. (not at the age of 9) if my 9 year old is sexually active there are a lot of other problems than just HPV!!!
i am feeling betrayed by all vaccines since my son was diagnosed with autism.
Posted by: jill robinson | August 27, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Fielding, Amen, brother!
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | August 27, 2008 at 09:14 AM
I am sure the drug companies are in a quandary over this one. "Plan A) - Paint all dissenters as crazy nut-jobs" may not work as well with the New England Journal of Medicine as it does with autism parents and our vaccine guinea pig troops.
FJH
http://autismparents.net
Posted by: Fielding J. Hurst | August 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Kim, I don't disagree with you, and perhaps I should clarify. The problem we have with Merck and the other pHARMa companies is that they have repeatedly lied to the public, shown that they are corrupt by seeding trials and buying off doctors to lie about the safety of their products, and they don't even get a slap on the wrist. This is eerily riminscent of the Tobacco scandals of the 70's and 80's, and I truly think that some hefty sanctions need to be applied to the current status quo. I'm hoping that this will be enough to wake up the government and do something about how out-of-control these Pharmaceutical Giants are.
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | August 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Craig, I don't want to make Merck or any other pharma company disappear - we need meds. If I get sick with a major treatable disease, I don't plan to eat roots and berries and pray to cure myself. I think vaccines need to be more carefully researched and tested before launch, tested in sum total with the other vaccines with which they will be adminstered and never ever ever sold like a new Cadillac, a life insurance policy or a box of cereal though.
Kim
Posted by: Stagmom | August 26, 2008 at 09:40 AM
This is actually a good thing. The NEJM is asking questions about Gardasil that should have been asked 2 years ago when it was rushed through clinical trials in 6 months and then peddled to the masses like street drugs on every corner. I am curious to see if there are reports of infertility among the girls who have received this shot.
Additionally, if they do find that the Gardasil vaccine is a fraud and a killer, then it's just another nail in the coffin for Merck.
Well, we can hope, can't we?
Posted by: Craig Willoughby | August 26, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Possibly, they will create strains resistant to treatment, as the vaccination for ear infections did:
Journal of the American Medical Association, October 17, 2007, pp. 1763-1771)
...And Now Resistant Ear-Infection Bacteria
One of the major advances in
protecting children (and adults)
from infections has been the use of
vaccines that target certain bacteria.
Seven years ago, a new vaccine u'as
introduced that protected children
from 7 different strains of bacteria
that caused pneumococcal infections,
such as pneumonia and
meningitis. Some of these strains
also cause ear infections, so a side
benefit of the vaccine was that it
reduced the chances that a child
would develop ear infections due to those bacteria. Researchers in Rochester, New York, now report what may be an unwelcome effect of the vaccine.
Among almost 2000 children with acute ear infections,they found 9 whose infections were due to a pneumococcal strain that wasn't part of the vaccine and this strain was resistant to all the antibiotics
approved for treating ear infections in children. To eliminate the infections, the authors successfully used an antibiotic that is commonly used in adults but not approved for use in children. (Pichichcro
ME & Casey JR: Journal of the American Medical Association, October 17, 2007, pp. 1772-1778)
COMMENT: These two reports were the subject
of many news stories, but they need to be kept -in perspective. MRSA is indeed a very
serious form of staph infection, and it
can be difficult or impossible to treat.
Fortunately, it is rare, and good
hygiene can help prevent spread.
(For example, outbreaks have been
seen among high-school athletes who
shared towels and other hahits of
poor hygiene.) Among children,
where ear infections are so common,
a new and resistant kind of bacteria
could be worrisome. However, it was
found in only one pediatric practice
(in Rochester), it affected only about
5 in 1,000 children, and it was treatable with antibiotics (though not by antibiotics approved for use in children with ear infections).
Its certainly important to recognize that bacteria seem to always be one step ahead of us. One solution, besides good hygiene, is to limit the amount of antibiotics we're using, since we know that the more these drugs are used, the more resistant bacteria
become. So each of us can help reduce the problem by not requesting antibiotics and saving them to treat infections where they are truly necessary.
Posted by: Elizabeth | August 26, 2008 at 09:06 AM
The AAP, like the CDC, has virtually ignored the explosion in autism. The only thing that the AAP has come up with
is to tell their doctors to look for the signs of autism at baby checkups. HPV among adolescent girls is now a priority only
because there's a product to be marketed and money to be made.
The NEJM piece says, "The real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades."
The very real side effects being reported in news stories across the country don't seem be raising concern but they should be
the major reason for caution.
Anne Dachel
Media editor
Posted by: Anne Dachel | August 26, 2008 at 08:43 AM
What will all of those doctors do when they read the NEJM? I'm thinking specifically of the *lovely* lady I took my teenage daughter to for a sports checkup. All of these pediatricians doing their best to guilt the parents into jabbing their daughters...
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this piece. Very, very interesting.
Posted by: Jeanne | August 26, 2008 at 07:14 AM