Gardasil Ads Banned in France

[mhatrw]

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do%3Bjsessionid%3D%3FcidTexte%3DJORFTEXT000022839429%26dateTexte%26oldAction%3DrechJO%26categorieLien%3Did&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhisgCYBGKlzGeNvL7HpKGsvXXbuYQ">Tranlated Website

Considering that this document is contrary to the provisions of Articles L, 5122-2 of the public health code, advertising for the aforementioned specialty pharmaceutical GARDASIL is prohibited.

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000022839429&dateTexte&oldAction=rechJO&categorieLien=id">The same ruling in the original French

[mhatrw]

1. 47 Deaths Associated With Gardasil Through VAERS Reports

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/vaersdeathsALL_20090616.pdf">Be One Less

[laconicsax]

2. VAERS!

:rofl:

HULK ANGRY! HULK SMASH!

[varkam]

13. Turning into the Hulk is no laughing matter!

:D

[trotsky]

3. Judicial Watch!

:rofl:

Why do anti-vaxers love right wing sources?

[xchrom]

4. +1

[laconicsax]

5. What better places to avoid reality than right-wing websites?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Do you know what sort of an organization Judicial Watch is?!

Not only are they not medical experts; but they are a right-wing group, who traditionally obsess over hating Hillary Clinton and undocumented immigrants; they now seem to be including Barack Obama in their hate-campaigns. Also the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque'. More specifically relevant to this particular issue, they are against increased government involvement in healthcare, claiming that this will increase corruption; and in particular are opposed to 'Obamacare'. Thus, their opposition to Gardasil seems to be all part and parcel of their opposition to government-provided healthcare.

This, from a site sympathetic to them, shows their views on current issues:

http://unhypnotize.com/health/9048-poll-reveals-mass-unrest-amongst-americans.html

Can their views be trusted on ANYTHING?

[mhatrw]

7. If your message includes anything that questions anything about ANY vaccines,

the messenger will be shot over and over and over.

This is nothing but a collection of VAERS reports. What does the website hosting the collection have to do with this?

[trotsky]

8. Do you know what VAERS is?

Do you know whether the data in VAERS has been clinically confirmed?

Please go find some answers to those questions, and then you might find out why no one is taking you seriously.

[mhatrw]

9. I know exactly what VAERS is.

It's a crappy ass reporting system to track adverse events that may or may not be associated with vaccinations.

It was set up purposefully to be crappy so that all of these adverse events can be written off by vaccine manufacturers and their advocates. No scientifically rigorous reporting system for adverse reactions to vaccinations exists, so we have to make do with this crappy system that just happens to show http://sanevax.org/pdf/11.10%20VAERS%20Analysis1%5B1%5D.pdf">89 deaths associated with HPV vaccination to date.

We don't really have any idea how many of these are deaths to which Gardasil or Cervarix vaccinations actually contributed. Then again, we also don't have any idea how many cervical cancer deaths Gardasil or Cervarix will supposedly protect against 40+ years from now,

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/795.extract">JAMA Editorial

When do physicians know enough about the beneficial effects of a new medical intervention to start recommending or using it? When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits? If in doubt, should physicians err on the side of caution or on the side of hope? These questions are at the core of all medical decision making. It is a complicated process because medical knowledge is typically incomplete and ambiguous. It is especially complex to make decisions about whether to use drugs that may prevent disease in the future, particularly when these drugs are given to otherwise healthy individuals. Vaccines are examples of such drugs, and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is a case in point. ...

Likewise, it is impossible to predict exactly what effect vaccination of young girls and women will have on the incidence of cervical cancer 20 to 40 years from now. The true effect of the vaccine can be determined only through clinical trials and long-term follow-up. ...

VAERS is a passive, voluntary reporting system, and the authors call attention to its limitations. They point out that only systematic, prospective, controlled studies will be able to distinguish the true harmful effects of the HPV vaccine. These limitations work both ways: it is also difficult to conclude that a serious event is not caused by the vaccine.

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15​ So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.

[trotsky]

15. No, clearly you DON'T know what VAERS is.

But yet after calling it a "crappy ass reporting system," you go and post data from it as if it were gold!

Now that's a laugher. No wonder no one takes you seriously.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

10. What it has to do with it...

is that this is an organization that has nasty views on healthcare in general; and therefore its views on Gardasil are likely to come from this attitude that government-promoted healthcare is dangerous.

I ALWAYS protest if right-wing groups are quoted with approval on DU. The message doesn't have to be about vaccines for me to object to right-wing messengers. Right-wing ideology, especially perhaps when applied to healthcare, is more dangerous than any vaccines, or than most diseases; and I will fight against this evil wherever I see it.

[mhatrw]

17. It was a merely a collection VAERS reports.

How can a collection VAERS reports be deemed right or left wing?

[LeftishBrit]

21. Then link directly to VAERS or to a medical source that quotes them

'How can a collection VAERS reports be deemed right or left wing?'

It can be USED for right-wing or left-wing purposes. Just as a hammer can be used for good purposes (building something) or bad purposes (vandalism or even murder).

Judicial Watch uses the VAERS reports as just one of its many weapons of opposition to government involvement in the provision of medical services. And opposition to government involvement in the provision of medical services is one of the vilest, most murderous viewpoints in existence, which kills far more people every year than any terrorist organization has ever achieved!

[LeftishBrit]

19. If messengers are far-right-wing...

then they are by definition of monsters of pure evil, who *deserve* to be shot (metaphorically!)

If a message is valid, then it should be supported by at least some human beings, and it should not be necessary to quote poisonous snakes on the subject!

The reason that it comes up with regard to vaccines, is simply that people on DU are more likely to quote far-right sources with regard to vaccines than with regard to many other subjects.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. Can you tell us if any other vaccines and/prescription products can be advertised in France.

What exactly is the law regarding DTCA of pharmaceutical products in France?

Only the advertisement of non-prescription medicines is possible to the general public. Moreover, the product must not be reimbursable by the social security scheme and the MA must not contain any prohibition of advertising to general public for public health reasons.

The promotional character of the advertising must be obvious and it must be clear that the product is a medicinal product. The advertisement must contain:

· the name of the medicinal product, as well as the common name if the medicinal product contains only one active substance;

· the information necessary for the correct use of the product;

· an express, legible invitation to read carefully the instructions on the leaflet or on the packaging; and

· a message of caution, a reference to the advice of a pharmacist and an invitation to consult a doctor.

[HuckleB]

18. +1

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Aren't ads for all prescription pharmaceuticals banned in most countries?

[LeftishBrit]

14. Yes, that is so in the UK and I believe in the EU in general

They can be advertised in journals aimed specifically at the medical profession, but not to the public in any way.

[hedgehog]

20. "France backs Merck's Gardasil over Glaxo rival"

France's High Council for Public Health said in a bulletin that girls of 14 years should be vaccinated against cervical cancer using a vaccine that targets four viruses, effectively endorsing Merck's product.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/15/idUSL1427457020080115

[LeftishBrit]

22. Advertising most medical products to the public is illegal in the EU...

and a good thing too. It's not specific to Gardasil.