The Independent recently published an article in which a father explained why his daughters would not be given the HPV vaccine. David Salisbury has written in to correct the article.
I was sad to see the article, “My girls won’t have the cancer jab” (16 November): to use its own words, the article was unnecessary, reckless and ridiculous. The back-of-the-envelope economic analysis was naïve. The UK model shows the NICE criteria were passed at a range of prices, including the list price used. Government contract prices can be significantly lower.
The safety concerns raised come from an anti-vaccine website. Analyses show no significant increased risks of serious adverse events; it is irresponsible to raise such concerns when there are no grounds to do so. Presentations on the safety of Gardasil cover 20 million doses under passive surveillance and more than 375,000 doses under active surveillance. And to refer to “a healthy immune system that hasn’t been challenged by too many vaccinations” to prevent cervical cancer is just nonsense.
The safety concerns the father cites appear to come from Judical Watch, which appears to think it has uncovered horrifying evidence of harm from HPV vaccine by examining reports of suspected adverse reactions filed with the CDC in the US. One of the problems of transparency in drug safety is that people with little understanding of the nature of drug safety data can either innocently, or deliberately because of an idealogical opposition to vaccines, create the impression of a safety problem when none exists. More on this later, but it is worth noting that a British non-tabloid newspaper, which ironically was handing out guides to science earlier this year, is allowing seepage of anti-vaccine material into its pages.