Is Gardasil Being Over Hyped By The Media?

30 August, 2008 (21:25) | BlogHer, Health, children, family, life, media, news, teens, women, women's health | By: Catherine Morgan

A new question surrounding Merck’s HPV vaccine. Is the media to blame for over hyping Gardasil? Personally, I think there is enough blame to go around for everyone here. But, the latest evidence is pointing to the news media sensationalizing the HPV and cervical cancer link. Why am I not surprised? Is there anything the news media doesn’t over-hype and sensationalize these days?

From The New York Times…

Merck’s teen girl vaccine Gardasil has been under fire of late, with everyone from The New England Journal of Medicine to The New York Times questioning whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the widespread use of vaccines against cervical cancer.

“I think the company did a very effective job of glossing over these questions in its marketing campaign and convincing the public that this vaccine would indeed prevent cervical cancer,’’ said Dr. Timothy Johnson, ABC’s medical editor, last week.

Now, a pro-business media watchdog group has a new take on the issue. The hype about Gardasil isn’t the result of over-the-top marketing by Merck, it claims, but is instead the result of heavy promotion by the American news media.

. . .

The report cites several examples, including:

ABC’s Charles Gibson told viewers “this breakthrough couldn’t come soon enough,” on the June 8, 2006 “World News Tonight.”

NBC’s Brian Williams called Gardasil a “triumph in science and medicine” on June 8, 2006. He referred to Gardasil as “the first vaccine to prevent cancer” on Dec. 28, 2006, and urged parents to get their children vaccinated in many “Today” appearances.

NBC’s “Today” show co-host Meredith Vieira declared that it “could save your teenager’s life some day” on Sept. 15, 2006. She also told viewers Gardasil was one of the three vaccines kids “need.” Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor, downplayed criticism of the expense of Gardasil, calling the $360 cost “the best investment you can make.”

For “The Early Show” on CBS, Dr. Emily Senay said Jan. 1, 2007, that the “top medical breakthrough [of 2006] has to be the cancer vaccine for cervical cancer, Gardasil.”

The report also says The New York Times “glowingly profiled Gardasil” in an August 2006 story about the history of the vaccine.

Since then, the media tide has certainly turned against Gardasil, due in large part because there is simply more available information about its use.

It was just earlier this month, that I took another look at the safety issues surrounding Gardasil. So what do we know? We now know that we can’t trust Merck to give us the truth, because they are making bazillions off of Gardasil. And, we can’t trust the FDA, because, let’s face it, we can’t trust them about anything. We can’t trust the CDC for the same reasons we can’t trust the FDA. And, now we know, that we can’t even trust our local and national news anchors. What is the world coming to?

Who can we trust when it comes to Gardasil?

Well. It seems like nobody.

I suggest you trust yourself, and your own intuition. Get the facts, talk to your teen, and make an informed decision about whether the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risk to your child. Make sure you talk to them about safe sex, and the importance of routine PAP tests too.

Don’t let fear dictate your decision. The majority of HPV viruses, will resolve completely on their own, often without you even knowing you had it. And, with or without the HPV vaccine, the best way to prevent cervical cancer, remains regular exams and PAP testing.

So, that’s my rant. Here is some of what other women bloggers are saying.

From Kandylini…

The bad news about GARDASIL vaccine keeps getting worse and it was only a matter of time before government health officials promoted an “epidemic” to deflect attention from GARDASIL risks and create an excuse to point accusing fingers at parents who decline to give their children one or more of the 16 federally promoted vaccines. They did the same thing in 1985, when publicity about DPT vaccine reactions prompted officials at the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics to allege there were whooping cough epidemics in eight states due to parents rejecting DPT. Then as now, the cases of disease were divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults, which is hardly big news.

The government’s dire warnings came late last week after newspaper articles examined the muscle that Merck used to get GARDASIL fast tracked and licensed, followed by an aggressive multi-media advertising and lobbying campaign targeting teenage girls which has already netted the big pharmaceutical company more than $1.5 billion in sales worldwide.

From Nurse Ratched…

I repeat: I have read the FDA’s response to all of this, and it is no more compelling than Gardasil’s opponents’ interpretations. Given this, I just wish that legislators and public health departments would be more cautious with this vaccine. Can we please get a little more data? We’re kind of beta-testing this vaccine on girls. I’m glad that most states seem to have said no to this legislation when it’s been introduced. In my state it was shot down just a month after it was introduced.

But I digress. I have a lot of data on Gardasil and its side effects and their incidence. What I can’t find is the incidence of serious side effects for widely accepted vaccines for comparison. Any epidemioloy wizards out there? What is considered an acceptable risk for a vaccine? They all do have risks. Is Gardasil on a par with the others, or is it being singled out because you have to have sex to get the disease, instead of just breathing the wrong air?

From Vaccine Awakening…

Public health officials and pediatricians should explain why 20 percent of America’s highly vaccinated child population suffers with chronic illness and disability rather than blaming parents who refuse to salute smartly and take the risk of watching the child they love become one more victim of vaccine damage.

From Health Beat…

I first wrote about Gardasil on The American Prospect online in the summer of 2006, just weeks before the Merck vaccine designed to protect against cervical cancer went to market.

There, I noted that “the hullabaloo began in June when the FDA approved Gardasil, a vaccine widely described as ‘100 percent effective’ in preventing cervical cancer, a disease that kills some 233,000 women worldwide each year. The drumbeat grew louder last month when a federal panel recommended that all American girls and women ages 11 to 26 should be inoculated. And now there is talk that states may mandate the vaccine for all school-age children.

“But before prescribing for the entire population,” I suggested, “it’s worth asking a few questions: Why does the vaccine cost $360 for a three-shot regimen? How much do we know about the new product? And is this a cost-effective use of health-care dollars?”

I reported what we knew at the time: Although Gardasil was commonly described as “100 percent effective” if you scrolled down far enough in most news stories, you would find that the vaccine is “100 percent effective” against “only two strains of HPV (human papillomavirus) that causes cervical cancer. And those two account for just 70 percent of all cases. The vaccine has no effect on the viral strains which account for the other 30 percent.”

From MOMformation…

Women will still need pap tests, as there are some strains of HPV not covered by the vaccine. The vaccine may make women feel falsely protected, and more likely to miss their pap smears and die eventually of cervical cancer.

As well, cervical cancer is relatively rare. It does not even make the American Cancer Society’s list of 10 deadliest cancers. Among American women, it causes well under a 10th of the number of deaths caused by lung cancer or breast cancer.

From Gardasil vs Guarding My Children…

Merck (the manufacturer of Gardasil) attests, though, that their vaccine is not to blame for these illnesses, including 10 deaths that occurred shortly after the vaccine was administered.

Hmmm… even though one of the risks that we know about can lead to death? Even though one doctor who worked as a researcher during the HPV clinical trials , stated “We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment.

Also See: