• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gardasil Under attack by Another Vaccine Maker

Eos of the Eons

Mad Scientist
Eos of the Eons
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
13,749
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/cervicalcancer/Expert39s-fear-over-cervical-cancer.4652314.jp

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2007/03/14/online_features/hpv_vaccine/hpv01.txt

We have another Wakefield on our hands.

Harper's vaccine is now being marketed as not for children, since the other vaccine is given to girls before they are exposed to HPV.

Gardasil was tested on women, and also children 9-15, but no matter.

Harper's vaccine doesn't also cover strains that cause warts, like Gardasil does.

Her study's sample size was less than half of Gardasil's, but no matter

Her vaccine covers less strains of HPV, but now that Gardasil is being used she wants to feed into the public fears that Gardasil should not be used on kids (even though getting the vaccine the vaccine before exposure to HPV is key). No matter, she has a vaccine that she wants used even though it covers less strains of HPV, so to market it she must get "word out" that it is somehow BETTER than Gardasil.

So, go to the media and make parents think that vaccines shouldn't be given to children.

OMFraccin FSM.

Booster shots are always considered, but this nitwit wants parents to think Gardasil will wear off and be useless, so use hers instead, after you turn 18. She infers that girls and women won't get their paps anymore if they use the Gardasil vaccine. Nowhere does anyone recommend that women stop getting paps.

This is a vile woman who wants her product used.

However, she will only cause further mistrust of drug companies, further backlash against vaccines in general, and is only shooting herself in the foot.

Nice going Harper. I hope you can live with your unprofessionalism and lack of ethics in general. I hope you also lose your job.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, Eos. I read it very differently. Don't be so quick to judge. Fact is, Dartmouth (whom she worked for) was on the payroll for both Merck and GlaxoSmithkline, and she participated in trials for both. I don't think she has a vested interest in either company, as that would be a serious conflict of interest. She appears to me to be simply a very opinionated "Ivory Tower" clinician researcher (which I run into quite frequently, I might add) who is frustrated with the aggressive marketing done by the pharma companies.

This is a quote from the second link (my bolding for emphasis):

"This vaccine is good, and it will save a huge number of lives around the world," Harper said. "But an important point is that, if women get the vaccine and then not get their Pap smears, or decide to get them infrequently, what will happen in the U.S. is that we will have an increase in cervical cancer, because the Pap screening does a very good job.
Click to expand...

And, this...

Since she doesn't personally have access to the money Merck and GlaxoSmithKline pay for her HPV vaccine research, Harper doesn't know exactly how much either has paid Dartmouth for her work.

The trials are expensive, between $4,000 and $5,000 for each patient, she said. With over 100 patients in her study, some big bucks could be in the balance, should Merck or Glaxo become upset with her for making these comments.

Why, then, would she risk speaking out like this - at a time when her words very well could influence legislation across the country, and prompt legislators to drop the mandates? Isn't she afraid of losing her funding?

"I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night," Harper said. "My concern is still, let's get women's health better. It is still a good vaccine. But let's be honest. Don't over-promise."
Click to expand...

In my read, I can't see anywhere she is saying "don't get the vaccine". She's just been quoted as describing some of the risks and current unknowns, which are indeed factual.

As someone who's been quoted in the media before, I can tell you that it is often amazing just how wrong or out-of-context what you said can be taken. And, depending on the person writing the article, they may use your words to paint their own agenda. Technically, it's not that you didn't say the things you did (which are often paraphrased), but just the way they're parsed and "reconstructed" by the article's author that may make it appear you have a particular stance that you really don't.

~Dr. Imago
 
She does feel cervarix is more "effective" because it was tested for longer (didn't need booster shots after 6 years). She also says a lot that cannot be just taken out of context:

Diane M. Harper, a lead researcher in the development of the humanpapilloma virus vaccine, says giving the drug to 11-year-old girls "is a great big public health experiment."

"To mandate now is simply to Merck's benefit, and only to Merck's benefit," she said.
Click to expand...


She doesn't say what side effects show up after 5 years. She doesn't say what side effects will show up after 10. She says there are these kinds of side effects though.
"In five years it will be pretty clear how safe it is because 70% of adverse events occur within five years and almost all of them, 97%, within 10 years. That way you have a good sense of comfort and you can reassure your population."


Harper concedes that Cervarix is effective against the HPV virus that causes many cases of cervical cancer and admits there is no evidence so far of any serious side effects.
Click to expand...

So, go to the public and get them fired up about side effects that didn't even show up after 5 years?
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/cervicalcancer/Expert39s-fear-over-cervical-cancer.4652314.jp

She would only have valid points if she can prove booster shots are going to be needed after 4-6 years, but evidence is showing otherwise (not needing boosters after 6 years). And if women all stopped getting paps (which they won't).

I could see her having a point if she came to the public and all her "worries" were true, but she has jumped the gun and has done nothing beneficial.

Test all 18 year olds instead?

Well, heck, why bother with the whole vaccine. At the rate it is going, only 25% of the population will have received it, and what is that going to do to stop the spread of the viruses that cause the most cases of cervical cancers?

I can tell ya, and this is a dumb slippery slope argument-yes, but what are the chances for the HIV vaccine when it comes available?

The catholic schools won't allow that either, since HIV is a curse from god against gays (I'm quoting a United Church minister here), and there ain't no gay kids in their schools. And if a researcher figures it wasn't tested enough??? They are going to go to the public and tell them they aren't sure it's safe because in their opinion some side effects won't show up for ten years??? And that people that are given it are just being experimented on?

I seriously don't know why drug companies bother. Nobody is going to believe they have any interest in public safety or care about anything other than profits. We have the researchers whining about not getting ten years for seeing what side effects will show up after ten years that haven't shown up after five.

Harper wants to be seen as having the public's interests at heart. Well, too bad she can't actually demonstrate what side effects would show up after 10 years. So, what has been accomplished here? Nothing good. What the heck is she hoping to accomplish???
 
Dr. Imago said:
Probably, likely given her own value system and sense of "conscience", to be able to say "I told you so" if something goes horribly awry down the line...

~Dr. Imago
Click to expand...
Oh how very ethical. And if nothing goes awry?

Doesn't matter much anyways, since parents now have her word that HPV vaccines, especially Gardasil, are not tested enough and you are just making your kid a guinea pig if you get it. Nothing can go awry if nobody bothers with it. Heck, lots of people were saying it wasn't tested at all, but whatever.

So, how many people are going to want her on a research team now? If you don't let her work on the thing for 10 or more years, she's gonna do what she can to make sure the end result is not used by the public.

Doesn't matter that they stopped the trials early because the vaccines proved to be so safe, her opinion matters more than the evidence.

So, who wants to bet what on what she does next? My suspicions have been displayed here for all to see, but I too jumped the gun on my accusations. Thing is, the consequences of my shooting my mouth off compared to the consequences of her shooting her mouth off?

Yep. To assure the public that drug companies are indeed only it it for profit and don't give a darn about your kids... Vaccines are just rotten to the very core, and the researchers are speaking out! Science is the EVIL, and now this poor researcher will be ostracized, jest like Wakefield, poor schmuck. Maybe she and Wakefield can work together on their 3 separate vaccines for mumps, measles, and rubella. She can test those for 50 years if she wants to. They better start an alternative to a drug company to sell them though, cuz drug companies are BAD.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
Oh how very ethical.
Click to expand...

It's just one person's opinion. The concept of "fart in a windstorm" comes to mind. At least now she can say she's "on the record". And, I hope she has a bunch of NIH grants because I'm pretty sure private industry isn't going to want her as a Principal Investigator on their studies anymore.

Still, too bad she's getting this press, though. But, I must admit, it ain't making the evening news where I live... and if I hadn't come here to this very forum and clicked on your link, I wouldn't have had any idea about this person and what she thinks.

Controversy sells... and makes for good news stories in some locales, I suppose. Gotta keep those advertising dollars coming in too, right? If it bleeds, it leads.

~Dr. Imago
 
And, either way, it looks like you and I are the only ones who care about this topic... so far.

~Dr. Imago
 
Awww, maybe she wasn't paid enough and now wants to pee on their profit margin? Pfft, now I'm really stretching.

Yeah, I don't know why I care at all. I guess I just want to know what the heck she figures she will accomplish.

Not on the same level as wakefield, but they could hang out and swap speculations.
 
I can't make heads or tails of it, but to say that a few slaps would go a long way.

People are already scared enough from all the hype without this lady with the "Dr" in front of her name scaring them worse

Calling it a fart in the windstorm is likely to be as prescient as calling Oprah "no big deal"
 
Dr. Imago said:
But, I must admit, it ain't making the evening news where I live... and if I hadn't come here to this very forum and clicked on your link, I wouldn't have had any idea about this person and what she thinks.
Click to expand...


Tell you what. She ain't making the evening news here either. (I live in Scotland, in case you didn't know.) Not only that, SoS is only one of two "quality" Sunday newspapers in Scotland. I read the other one this morning, cover to cover. Not a syllable, as far as I saw.

It will be interesting to see if the dailies pick it up tomorrow. I'm not betting on it. I think it's just SoS filling dead-tree space.

Rolfe.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Calling it a fart in the windstorm is likely to be as prescient as calling Oprah "no big deal"
Click to expand...

Nah! I have more confidence in the vast majority of moms and daughters, and their relationship with their FPs and their OB/Gyns, in making the right choices all the way around. I seriously doubt this one woman's opinion is going to carry much weight, except in the people who've already made up their minds that this vaccine was a bad idea (for whatever reason) from the get-go. And, nota bene that she never anywhere says, "Don't get the vaccine."

And, I just went to PubMed and checked out some abstracts of her other publications. My impression from my short review there is that she feels very strongly about women continuing to get Papanicolou smear screenings of their cervix after the vaccine. Her fear is that women will stop doing this because they'll feel that they can't get the disease anymore. So, no, I don't think she's a bad person or a bad clinician. I think she's just worried that many women will subsequently feel that Pap smears are no longer necessary after getting the vaccine, which we currently understand to be good for only 4-5 years (without boosters).

Now imagine this scenario... Give a tweenage girl the vaccine, she maybe erroneously thinks she's fully protected from getting the problematic HPV strains, she then turns into your typical surly, irresponsible 17-year-old (not that all 17-year-old girls are irresponsible... just the sexually active ones who also don't use protection) who's far more likely to forget to get a booster, and suddenly you haven't really made a dent into the cervical cancer problem for a large cohort of young women.

I don't know, Eos. Maybe the way the message has been delivered is off, but she may be onto something here... Most of the people I interact with out there on a daily basis aren't as educated, insightful, responsible, and erudite as yourself. (You'll have to trust me on that one. ;) )

~Dr. Imago
 
Difference of opinion happens all the time in science. I would be more worried if there weren't disagreements like this now and then because that would make science more like a strict religion in which speaking "off message" is not tolerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom