Slate On Gardasil Inadequate Safety Testing (No It's Not April 1st)
The 12 Days of Skyhorse Publishing Day 12 The Age of Autism

GSK Advocates Gardasil for Boys and Cervarix for Girls in Confidential Communication to UK Vaccine Committee

In a remarkable response to a Freedom of Information request to the UK Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation by Angus Files the committee have published the following information:

 

 Section 43 – Commercial interests


The fact that GSK is advocating a gender-neutral program using Cervarix in girls and
Gardasil in boys is confidential and commercially sensitive, and disclosure of GSK’s
position would prejudice the commercial interests of GSK:


If details of GSK’s position on advocating a gender neutral programme were
disclosed in response to the request, it would be accessible to GSK’s competitors,
who would gain insight into GSK’s development plans and strategy with respect to
the market positioning of Cervarix in the UK. In a normal competitive environment,
GSK’s competitors would not have this insight. GSK does not have similar insight
into its competitors’ strategy and development plans, and therefore disclosure of
GSK’s position puts GSK at a competitive disadvantage. This information is therefore
exempt from disclosure under Section 43 of the Act.


GSK’s views on the cost effectiveness of a gender-neutral program using Cervarix in
girls and Gardasil in boys is confidential and commercially sensitive, and disclosure
of GSK’s position would prejudice the commercial interests of GSK:
GSK’s comments on the cost effectiveness of a gender neutral programme and the
reduced cost in girls when using Cervarix instead of 4vHPV reveal GSK’s potential
strategy with respect to the market positioning and pricing of its Cervarix product. In
a normal competitive environment, GSK’s competitors would not have this insight.
GSK does not have similar insight into its competitors’ pricing and market positioning
strategy, and therefore disclosure of GSK’s position puts GSK at a competitive
disadvantage. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 43
of Act.

Open scientific exchange:
GSK has shared its innovative ideas on a gender neutral program with the JCVI in
the spirit of open and honest scientific dialogue, with the aim of generating
discussion on how to deliver a comprehensive and cost effective protection to the
public. Disclosure of this information would discourage GSK from sharing such
information and innovative ideas with the JCVI freely in the future.


Public interest:
It is in the public interest for a normal competitive environment to be maintained, for
example so that potential suppliers can compete fairly and competitively in a future
public procurement process and the procuring authority can get the best possible
deal for the public purse. It is also in the public interest that open scientific exchange
is maintained, so that GSK and its competitors can share innovative ideas with the
JCVI without fear of their commercially sensitive and confidential information being
disclosed publicly. 

The accompanying heavily redacted letter discloses concerning a recent study (phase III PATRICA)  of the efficacy of Cervarix for women:

The validity of this data has been challenged as it is based on one study only and follow up time was limited to four years

The source of the criticism has been redacted.

 

 

Comments

False scientists

Thanks all. I completely agree with Linda1, the health orgs want to advise the public on injecting substances into their bodies, yet get away with no scrutiny of the details. Sick people the lot of them. I can see why honest types give up the field in disgust.

John Stone

False scientists

I think this may be about genital warts which G is supposed to be effective against and C isn't. GSK might be saying their's is the less useful product but not for public ears, except that it is surprising the JCVI/Public Health England have published this.

It is obvious that we cannot know that secret deals between the industry and the government can represent the public interest, and for that reason in many instance they most likely don't.

I suppose GSK mad it hard for themselves calling the product Cervarix in the first place.

Angus Files

False scientists

"The only takeaway from this decision is they feel (not based on testing) that boys can handle aluminum (among other things) as well or better than girls."

I`ll stick to my normal takeaway of fried fish and with normal salt rather than the aluminium salts thanks.


I seen this the other night as I wondered where the higher rate of autism in boys would come in the equation..

.the pre-eminence of intracellular aluminium associated with non-neuronal cells was a standout observation in autism brain tissue and may offer clues as to both the origin of the brain aluminium as well as a ..... All 4 male donors had significantly higher concentrations of brain aluminium than the single female donor.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Angus Files

"Am I getting this right? The pharmaceutical industry together with closed government committees decide what the public is to be injected with and the details are none of the public's business because divulging that information would not be in the public's interest?"

I would think so Linda Brexit, Trump being elected, multiple European countries looking to leave the EU- all democratically voted for by wee the people.None of it was ever meant to happen as the Totalitarianism have never planned for it.Great how they hide behind the feeble competition rules.Here is a vaccine that`s is full of problems but your going to have it anyway!

to quote Orwell 1984, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

John Stone

Linda

Exactly so.

Note my BMJ letter - the industry not only now have a fast track machine for licensing their drugs the British government have put the recent CEO of GSK at the head of it.

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5387/rr-0


Re: Accelerated access to new drugs and technologies
A dozen years before Naci and Mossialos wrote [1] :

"Nonetheless, the proposal says too little on expected benefits for patients and wider society. Instead, several concrete pledges are made to industry, including a promise to establish a new commercial unit within the NHS to “immediately streamline the pathway for access discussions” and pave the way for “flexible and confidential commercial arrangements.” Why? Because innovators want it, according to the report."

the Select Health Committee of the House of Commons already warned [2]:

"The Department of Health has for too long optimistically assumed that the interests of
health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Department
sponsors the industry as well as looking after health....

"The consequences of lax oversight is that the industry’s influence has expanded and a
number of practices have developed which act against the public interest. The industry
affects every level of healthcare provision, from the drugs that are initially discovered and
developed through clinical trials, to the promotion of drugs to the prescriber and the
patient groups, to the prescription of medicines and the compilation of clinical guidelines... "

The report then went on to outline many of the wellknown dubious practices of the industry. In 2005 the Committee took the view that Department of Health had been negligent in guarding the interests of citizens, but it looks as in 2017 the difference between the state and the industry has been abolished altogether, not least because even before the publication of this article the government or the NHS had appointed Sir Andrew Witty - until earlier this year CEO of GlaxoSmithKline - to head the new body [3]. It even seems as if the initiative is able to take place without special legislation.

Surely, some further consideration of the wisdom of this departure is in order.

[1] Naci H and Mossialos E, 'Accelerated access to new drugs and technologies', BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5387 (Published 22 November 2017)

[2] House of Commons Health Committee, 'The influence of the pharmaceutical industry' p.3, 2005

[3] Chris Smith, 'Patients to get breakthrough drugs on NHS', The Times 3 November 2017,
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patients-to-get-breakthrough-drugs-on...

Linda1

Am I getting this right? The pharmaceutical industry together with closed government committees decide what the public is to be injected with and the details are none of the public's business because divulging that information would not be in the public's interest?

Angus Files

This was the request as below..

Dear The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation,

Under the Freedom Of information Act 2000 I am writing to request a copy
of the GSK submission referred to in the JCVI Draft Minutes dated
October 2017, (Page 17) as part of the stakeholders submissions re the
discussions to extend the current HPV vaccination scheme to include
boys. I fully understand that this will contain commercially sensitive
information and will be accepting of suitable redaction which you impose
to comply with the Act.

Yours faithfully,

False scientists

The only takeaway from this decision is they feel (not based on testing) that boys can handle aluminum (among other things) as well or better than girls.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)