Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

News

Opportunity was missed in choice of cervical cancer vaccine, health campaigners say

BMJ 2008; 336 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a451 (Published 26 June 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;336:1456

Rapid Response:

Re: How can we know if we can't scrutinise the details?

To vaccinate or not? That is the question for thousands of parents as the HPV immunisation programme rolls out in the UK this autumn.

The transparent optimism of those wide eyed ‘key opinion leaders’ like Peter English is clear testimony to the absolute clarity on the long term ‘cancer busting’ benefits of such an expensive vaccine.

Parents will be encouraged.

But what of safety?

Parents will want to be sure that their young daughters will be safe. Of course, the NHS contract has been awarded to the Cervarix vaccine for reasons that have not been fully clarified. Perhaps the reason is the superior vaccine safety of Cervarix.

Judicial Watch, a US public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has been chasing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the safety data on Gardasil, the rival vaccine.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/jun/judicial-watch-uncovers- new-fda-records-detailing-ten-new-deaths-140-serious-adverse-e

The report is disturbing.

Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton said,

“Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to re-evaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children.”

Of course, British parents will be relieved to hear that Cervarix has been chosen over Gardasil on the grounds of safety.

Competing interests: None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

04 July 2008
Mark Struthers
GP
Bedfordshire, UK