Bio
I am a 44 year old single mother of two beautiful children; Brian 20, and Nicole 17. Being a mom is the thing I am most proud of; I could sit and ta...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

Is The Media To Blame For Over Hyping Gardasil? It Seems So.

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

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

  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
keyster94 5 pts

I had been very wary of this vaccine from the get-go.  Until there was evidence of long term research, there wasn't a chance I was going to support it.  I have become very wary of anything with unknown side effects....

~Kelly

http://www.30somethingandsearching.today.com/< ( http://www.30somethingandsearching.today.com/ )

lifeexperiences 5 pts

ok,  we all know what HPV is,  Its a wart, like many warts but it can definately complicate things and make your CHANCES of cervical cancer increase.  Just like if you smoke, makes your chances of lung cancer increase.  If you eat white flour, it will make the chances of cancer grow.  Like everything in life,  there are certain risks to everything and all things that you do, eat, wear, etc...

When I first seen the commercials on T.V basically saying that if you don't get your daughter vaccinated against this HPV virus YOU WERE A BAD PARENT.  (well... that is the way it made me feel, and I am sure a few other mothers made themselves think about vaccinating their children just for this reason)  Now what a way to make money!,  Scare the bejeezus out of parents. 

Don't get me wrong,  I believe it might be a good thing to do, but the way it was presented  to the public was wrong.  Look at the adds for Valtrex, they were tastefully done. (the ones I seen anyways)  Herpes is a growing concern, it is not curable, million are effected AND your chances of getting cervical cancer increases when you have herpes. To me there is no difference with the CHANCES they say,  but I didn't see a Valtrex commercial that made me feel bad if I didn't take their pills. (understand what I am trying to say?  Shame Shame on Gardasil.

Informed people make informed decisions, scared people make rash decisions.  That is the part that worries me the most about this.   

evilslutopia 5 pts

The posts we did on Gardasil on our blog (10 Things ( http://evilslutopia.com/2007/01/gardasil.html ) and 10 More Things ( http://evilslutopia.com/2007/05/gardasil-2.html )) are still some of the most popular even though they were written quite a while ago.  We definitely agree that this is a case where you really need to do your own research, learn about the risks and benefits, and decide what's right for you.  

We'd also recommend this NYT piece, which goes into more depth about the "push" for Gardasil from Merck: The Evidence Gap ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/health/policy/20... )

From that article:

"But some experts worry about the consequences of the rapid rollout of the new vaccines without more medical evidence about how best to deploy them. They say that because of the aggressive marketing, even parents of girls who are far from being sexually active may feel pressured into giving them a vaccine that is not yet needed and whose long-term impact is still unclear. Legislative efforts to require girls to have the vaccine only add to the pressure.

In the United States, hundreds of doctors have been recruited and trained to give talks about Gardasil — $4,500 for a lecture — and some have made hundreds of thousands of dollars. Politicians have been lobbied and invited to receptions urging them to legislate against a global killer. And former state officials have been recruited to lobby their former colleagues."

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

lilmommythatcould 5 pts

Great info.  Although my daughter is only two I have already decided "NO!" to Gardasil.  It is upsetting that drug companies are still getting away with these ploy marketing schemes and extreme failures and not being held accountable for thier actions.  Is the media to blame for Gardasil, no way- They provide the information that is given to them.  Although I would LOVE to know who gave them their info!

~Susan                                                                                                                   

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

amygeekgrl 5 pts

Excellent post, Catherine. Thank you for raising awareness on the many issues surrounding the Gardasil vaccine. I think you said it best when you said "Don't let fear dictate your decision." The best thing people can do is their own research and trust themselves. 

Amy
Crunchy Domestic Goddess ( http://crunchydomesticgoddess.com )
BlogHers Act contributing editor ( http://www.blogher.com/special-events/bloghers-act )

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

I agree.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ ), The Political Voices of Women ( http://politicsanew.com/ ), Care2 Election< ( http://www.care2.com/politics/features/ )

Meggie 5 pts

It might be nice if they were vaccinating a group that the vaccine was proven to help, like young girls, but companies are focusing on testing the vaccine on young men. It's a little too reminiscent of the plot of "Constant Gardener" for me. I don't approve of pharmaceutical companies vaccinating populations that are not being informed of the risks of taking part in an experimental program.  

http://www.theearthlyparadise.com/

Catherine Morgan 5 pts

Hi Meggie. 

I actually think the one place where this vaccine could be very useful is in poor and developing counties, where access to healthcare and PAP tests are limited. The death rate (from cervical cancer) in these developing countries are still very high, and that is because they don't have access to testing and treatment.  In that case, the benefit of this vaccine would seem to outweigh the risk.  The trouble is...Merck would rather sell it to us (whether we need it or not) because they can make more money selling it here. It's all about the money...always is.  

Thanks for your comment.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com ( http://catherine-morgan.com/ ), The Political Voices of Women ( http://politicsanew.com/ ), Care2 Election< ( http://www.care2.com/politics/features/ )

Meggie 5 pts

Thank you for collecting all of these articles! I've been a little wary of the Gardasil vaccine since it came out. In my view, it always seems better to take some time to see how well a vaccine actually works before rushing out and getting it.

I was horrified to learn the other day that in Colombia they are attempting to have boys vaccinated, as well as girls (even though the vaccine won't be approved for boys for another year). My stepson, who lives in Colombia, was getting a lot of pressure at school to get the vaccine--even though it hasn't even been approved yet! It's amazing how much pressure pharmaceutical companies put on parents to get these vaccines. Suddenly, you're the worst parent in the world if you aren't willing to give your child an unproven vaccination. If I was skeptical before, I'm ten times as wary of the vaccine now.  

http://www.theearthlyparadise.com/

rshannigan 5 pts

In December of 2006 Mothering Magazine published this  "A Shot in the Dark ( http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/va... )"  warning about the dangers of gardasil.  This vaccine was never tested on young girls, not approved for adolescents or teens, and guards against only 4% of HPV strains.

I don't understand why people believe the drug companies anymore.  THEY PROFIT WHEN YOU ARE SICK--- hello....

I don't think the media is to blame, the drug companies paid to have those stupid "one less" commercials on the air and they paid their lobbyists to have it worked into the vaccine schedule.  Which state was it that wouldn't let girls into middle school without it?

Sure- blame the media a little, but parents can no longer believe that the government is looking out for their kids, when it's owned by drug companies.

http://mrshannigan.blogspot.com

Liz Thompson 5 pts

My two oldest girls (they are 12 and 14) had their well-visits, this month and I still held off on allowing my Pediatrician to administer the vaccine.

I feel okay about my decision, or lack thereof, sort of.

Thank you for this terrific post, Catherine - the more information I can get my hands on, the better I feel.

--------------------------------------------

This Full House ( http://thisfullhouse.com )

This Full House Reviews ( http://thisfullhouse.com/reviews )

Imperfect Parent ( http://www.imperfectparent.com )

ScarlettHester 5 pts

I didn't know about the backlash or the issue with the vaccine.  I suffer from lack of exposure to mass media.

I'm with you, you can't trust the FDA, but I didn't know I couldnt' trust the CDC.  Of course I'll have to look into that one myself, can't trust everything I read ;)