There are not many public health issues where views are as extremely polarized as those concerning vaccination policies. Ever since its Fast Track approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006, Merck's human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil has been sparking controversy. Initially, the criticism has been focused at Merck, due to their overly aggressive marketing strategies and lobbying campaigns. According to a 2007 editorial in Nature Biotechnology, Surrounded by a chorus of disapproval, Merck cracked. As Nature Biotechnology went (...) to press, the company announced a cessation of all efforts to lobby for US state laws requiring compulsory vaccination. Subsequently, questions have been raised whether it was appropriate for vaccine manufacturers to partake in public health policies when their conflicts of interests were so obvious. Some of their advertising campaign slogans, such as cervical cancer kills x women per year and your daughter could become one less life affected by cervical cancer, seemed more designed to promote fear rather than evidence-based decision making about the potential benefits of the vaccine versus any risks. (shrink)

Biomedical ethics requires that clinical trial participants be accurately informed of the potential risks associated with investigational medical products. We found that the vaccine manufacturer Merck made false statements to the trial participants about the safety of Gardasil in its Future II HPV vaccine trial in Denmark. The clinical study protocol specified that safety testing was one of the trial’s primary objectives, but the recruitment brochure given to trial participants stated this was not the case, as allegedly the vaccine had (...) already been proven safe in previous trials. The advertising material for the trial and the informed consent forms stated that the comparator was saline or an inactive substance, when, in fact, it contained Merck’s proprietary aluminum adjuvant which is highly immunogenic. Several trial participants experienced long-term disabling symptoms during the trial, also some randomized to the adjuvant “placebo” control group. In all cases, their serious adverse events were dismissed as unrelated to the study treatment by Merck’s clinical investigators. We demonstrate that Merck’s published statements about the safety of their proprietary aluminum adjuvant is contradicted by the research evidence. The use of adjuvants as “placebos” in vaccine clinical trials is unethical as it makes it difficult to discover serious vaccine harms. (shrink)