Editor's note: The following essay by Vera Hassner Sharav, published on her blog, the important Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), deconstructs the corrupt processes that play out behind the front lines of Gardisil's road to forced injection. The pharmaceutical industry and corrupt government's unholy alliance continues its assault on the civil rights and health of every American.

The New York Times, well known for its unbridled and shameless promotion of the pharmaceutical industry, is complicit.

It has never addressed crucial questions of the HIV - AIDS sham, instead choosing to blindly accept a theory that has more holes in it than a kitchen collander. The paper uses its influence unwisely. Instead of being a voice of reason it chooses to be a mouthpiece promoting dangerous AIDS drugs, most of which have been proven to cause irreparable damage to pregnant women, newborns, Africans, and gay men everywhere, all of whom are fooled or forced into taking these poisons.

The HPV vaccine, recently mandated in several states thanks to Merck's lobbying efforts, was endorsed by the Times, and blessed by the CDC. No doubt, the the earnest endorsements by the CDC and the Times had a lot to do with the success of Merck's campaign, in spite of the many lapses in what is clearly an incomplete analysis of the drug's safety. The following report further reveals the many reasons Gardisil's efficacy as a vaccine is questionable.

New York Times: A Vital Discussion Clouded - Mandatory HPV Vaccinations
by Vera Hassner Sharav

The fracas arising from Merck’s aggressive lobbying states to mandate its new HPV vaccine, Gardasil, for 11 year old girls has kicked up a dust storm and drawn a line in the sand. Among the promoters of mandatory vaccination, The New York Times argues on the basis of preconceived prejudices--exactly what they accuse those opposed of doing.

The Times has had two editorial endorsements, several news reports and opinion pieces by its reporters. Across the board—with the exception of readers’ letters the Times accepts the claims made by Merck and its army of paid physicians, and has disseminated propaganda favoring mandatory vaccination “to save lives.”

It is noteworthy that the Times has evaded the thorny scientific issues: such as the inconclusive data about the vaccine’s safety or duration of efficacy.

The Times science reporters and editorial writers have artfully formulated the argument in favor of mandatory vaccination, by misrepresenting the opposition as comprised exclusively of right wing conservatives who are concerned “about promiscuity.”

“Second Opinion,” in Tuesday’s Science section, by NYT science writer, Denise Grady, is an example of promotional propaganda: “Worries about promiscuity have clouded the discussion about the cervical cancer vaccine that was approved last year for girls and young women, and that some states want to require for schoolgirls. Cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, and the message from some quarters is that a decent young woman shouldn’t need this vaccine.“ Grady quotes enthusiastic vaccine supporters, Dr. Laura Koutsky and Dr. Anna Giuliano—both of who have financial ties to Merck.

FACTS:

• About 40 types of human papillomavirus thrive in the genital region.
• Gardisal contains only four—two of them potentially cancerous.
• The vast majority of males and females infected with HPV viruses suffer no ill effects.
  In most healthy people, the immune system fights off the virus.

• Only 2.2% of women who contract the types of virus that can cause cervical cancer actually develop the disease.
• Regular Pap tests can usually detect the cancer early enough to cure it.

The following scientific issues raised by AHRP board member, Meryl Nass, MD, are not addressed by The NY Times:

1. The vaccine has not been proven to prevent cervical cancers, since none occurred during clinical trials.
2. The vaccine has not been proven to be safe in women who become pregnant; the vaccine may cause birth defects if vaccine recipients become pregnant shortly before or after vaccinations.
3. The duration of protection and extent of protection are unknown.

Merck claims the vaccine is nearly 100% effective, yet it has no way of knowing whether vaccine recipients were ever exposed to these (or any) HPV strains. FDA admits it lacks conclusive data for safety and efficacy: indeed, the agency has requested that Merck conduct post-marketing clinical trials to resolve the above three questions.

However, as the record shows, the majority of post-marketing clinical trials demanded by FDA have never been performed.

Furthermore, FDA has redacted two paragraphs in its letter to Merck regarding studies of vaccine quality and stability.

This indicates additonal unacceptable problems regarding vaccine manufacturing issues. So, conclusive data on the vaccine may never be available.

The Times dismisses out of hand concerns about the ethics of mandating a vaccine that in essence is a vast medical experiment conducted on young girls. If ethical concerns have no place in a debate about a public health policy such as this, then our public health policies are stripped of medicine's ethical constraints opening the way for diving headlong down the slippery slope.

Contrast the Times handling of the issue with an article in the Weekly Standard

"A Merck-y Business: The case against mandatory HPV vaccinations,”
by Michael Fumento, a military, health, and science writer. Fumento lays out Additional Facts about HPV:

A study just released by the Centers for Disease Control says about 27% of U.S. females aged 14 to 59 years have it. Importantly, only 2.2 % of those women are carrying one of the two virus strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer.
The 3,670 deaths from cervical cancer expected this year are a tiny fraction of the 270,100 projected female deaths from all cancers.

Further, according to federal data, both the incidence and the death rate for cervical cancer are dropping. The incidence was 14.8 per 100,000 women in 1973 but down to 7.1 per 100,000 by 2003.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer generally increased. "Cervical cancer was the only cancer among the top 15 cancers that decreased in women of all races and ethnicities. According to the American Cancer Society. Cervical cancer death rates declined steadily from 5.6 per 100,000 in 1975 to 2.5 in 2003.

The main reason for the declines in both incidence and death is the Pap test. Pap smears are not 100 percent effective at finding cells before they become cancerous, but they have the added benefit of detecting pre-cancerous cells with causes other than HPV.

The Times argument would force all young girls to be vaccinated because “some women do not get tested” with the Pap smear. Whether or not being vaccinated sends a message to teens about sexual freedom, it sends a much stronger message about Pap smears: Why bother when one is already protected (mostly) from the big danger, cervical cancer? That message can be lethal—as it is in underdeveloped countries where women have no access to Pap smears.

But in the U.S., gynecologist Mark Spitzer, MD, informs us that HPV has an extremely long latency period between infection and cancer risk—on average, 28 years after becoming infected. So, none of the 11-year old girls who are targeted for the Gardasil vaccine will even be at risk of cervical cancer, much less death—until 28 years AFTER being infected. By the time the virus might possibly pose a risk for these girls, he notes, cervical cancer may be a thing of the past.

Finally, physician Martin Myers, director of the National Network for Immunization Information, and former head of the federal National Vaccine Program Office, said: ""It's not the vaccine community pushing for this. Many of us are concerned a mandate may be premature, and it's important for people to realize that this isn't as clear-cut as with some previous vaccines."

Clearly, the push to speed marketing through mandatory vaccination was entirely orchestrated by Merck for whom Gardasil priced at $360 offers a rich opportunity to “Help Pay for Vioxx” litigation costs.

Bottom line: What is the moral justification for relegating our daughters to be human guinea pigs in post-marketing evaluation of a vaccine that:

a. was issued a license with so little actually known about its safety and efficacy;
b. protects against a form of cancer that does not pose a life-threatening risk for these youngsters?

Technorati Tags: