elop, thus causing the cancer from which they’re supposedly being protected.
- When information about HPV vaccine risks and limitations are not provided, women cannot possibly make informed decisions about whether to have the vaccine.
- Health regulators are making decisions based on information provided by the same corporations that hope to profit from them. How can they possibly make rational decisions on such limited and biased information?
Investigation into Merck’s Murky Dealings with Government
“Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking” is an investigation into the lobbying efforts by Merck to promote the HPV vaccine, Gardasil. It states:
Merck engaged in direct lobbying to varying degrees in all of the states we studied. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximize uptake of Gardasil, either directly through company employees or by using local political consultants, prominent physicians, or public relations firms.
Many respondents reported that company representatives proposed specific legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor. In most states, their efforts focused on a school-entry mandate. Respondents pointed out that Merck’s activities were not unusual, although the public seemed to have been unaware that private companies played such a role in the legislative process. One commented,“Just about every vaccine mandate that we have lately has been the result, at least partially, of the drug industry’s efforts.” [Emphasis mine.]
They asked respondents, who included legislators, health officials, medical professional organizations, advocacy organizations, journalists, health insurers, and clinical researchers, what role pharmaceutical manufacturers should play. The respondents believed that pharmaceutical manufacturers should provide scientific information about the products they push and that it was appropriate for Merck reps to sit on task forces and committee meetings. Worse, though, not one person felt that there was any problem in Merck’s drafting legislation!
In my reading of the paper, it appeared that the respondents tended to hide behind the fact that Merck donated some vaccine, though there were a few who found Merck’s involvement to be inappropriate.
Women in Government (WIG) received funding from Merck, which some respondents felt was just fine, though opinions did vary on that point. It should come as no surprise that WIG heavily promoted implementation of the Gardasil vaccine.
The investigation documented the extremely disturbing influence that pharmaceutical corporations have in governmental health decisions that affect us all.
Response to Investigation into Merck’s Influence in Government
“Who Profits from Uncritical Acceptance of Biased Estimates of Vaccine Efficacy and Safety?” is a definitive statement regarding Merck’s influence in vaccine policy. Tomljenovic and Shaw state:
… [C]areful scrutiny of Gardasil clinical trials shows that their design, as well as data reporting and interpretation, were largely inadequate.
They go on to delineate that optimism about Gardasil’s clinical benefits rests “on an extremely weak base built on a number of untested assumptions and significant misinterpretation of factual evidence.” They cite these examples:
- The claim that Gardasil will result in a 70% reduction in cervical cancer is made in spite of there being no clinical data to support it.
- The claim that life-long protection is provided by three vaccine doses has no basis in fact, as studies lasted, at most, five years.
- The claim that Gardasil’s adverse effects are minor are supported only by “highly flawed safety trial design”.
- They also point out “evidence of biased and selective reporting of results from clinical trials”.
Their conclusion is:
Keeping in mind that “the primary interest of a pharmaceutical company is developing and selling pharmaceutical product,” one must ask whether rational vaccine policy decisions should be based on conclusions derived from an uncritical acceptance of flawed vaccine safety and efficacy 