I have written in the past about Dr. Diane Harper, a former Merck & Co. researcher who apparently had some management role in the clinical trials of the HPV quadrivalent vaccine, also known as Gardasil (or Silgard in Europe).
The HPV vaccine, a vitally important part of the war against infectious diseases, prevents the transmission of certain types (pdf), specifically types 6, 11, 16, and 18 of the human papillomavirus (HPV). Importantly, HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, and cause most HPV-induced anal (95% linked to HPV), vulvar (50% linked), vaginal (65% linked), oropharyngeal (60% linked) and penile (35% linked) cancers. These HPV-related cancers can be prevented as long as you can prevent the HPV infection itself, which are generally passed through genital contact, most often during vaginal, oral and anal sex.
According to the dark recesses of the internet that are devoted to the cause of denying the value of vaccines, Dr. Harper had decided to “come clean” about Gardasil so that she could “sleep at night.”
The antivaccination world has attached themselves to this story, because they think it uncovers a conspiracy or lies by the vaccine manufacturers, since obviously Dr. Harper escaped from the evil clutches of Big Pharma. And because antivaccinationists do their “research” by Google, of course, this story keeps getting repeated until it becomes The Truth™.
The Truth™ about Dr. Harper
You can read the whole article I mentioned above, but here were the conclusions:
In a 2012 peer-reviewed article about Cervarix, Dr. Harper states that “Cervarix is an excellent choice for both screened and unscreened populations due to its long-lasting protection, its broad protection for at least five oncogenic HPV types, the potential to use only one-dose for the same level of protection, and its safety.”
Again, she speculates that cervical cancer screening may be just as useful, but nowhere does she recommend that the vaccine not be used, that it’s safety profile is unacceptable, or that the vaccine cannot prevent cancer. In fact, she recommends expanding the guidelines for HPV vaccines for older women because as they age, they are more susceptible to other serotypes of HPV, against which Cervarix confers protection. She also states that Cervarix may also have a protective effect against some autoimmune disorders. This does not sound like a researcher who is losing sleep about the HPV vaccine, but who fully supports its use, with some exceptions.
Dr. Diane Harper is one of the leading researchers in biomedical science, an individual who has spent her life studying vaccines. She has the academic training and research credibility at a level that if she said “Gardasil is dangerous”, many of us would stand up and begin to wonder.
But the facts are she has not said anything of the sort about Gardasil and Cervarix. In peer-reviewed articles published in important, high impact journals, she has given strong, but scientifically qualified, endorsements to HPV vaccines. These are the facts. Any other allegations about her lack of support for vaccinations is based on misinformation, disinformation and lies.
Gardasil does not increase sexual activity of young girls. HPV vaccinations were found to be extremely safe, with no serious adverse events observed in large clinical trials. And it has been shown to reduce the prevalence of HPV in young women. These are the scientific facts, and from them, we can conclude, as did Dr. Harper, that HPV vaccines save lives.
More of The Truth™
Dr. Harper is an advocate for the vaccine, and has remained steadfast in her support of the vaccine over the past few years. She has some nuanced concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine if women have regular screenings for pre-cancerous cells, but she has never said that it was unsafe or ineffective.
And many researchers disagree with her reliance on pre-screening, because even pre-cancerous cells may cause significant issues to reproductive health–in other words, preventing even milder forms of HPV-induced diseases add significantly to the overall benefit of the vaccine.
Not The Truth™
So, you’d think it was time for me to move along to discrediting another antivaccine meme; unfortunately, I had to hit the brakes and return to the Dr. Harper story. I saw an article about her in one of the most abominable anti-science websites on the internet, NaturalNews.
For those of you who do not know, NaturalNews, founded by Mike “The Health Ranger” Adams, is a quack website that promotes nearly every type of medical woo one could imagine. But he specializes in vaccine denialism, AIDS/HIV denial, snake oil cancer therapies, and various conspiracy theories. And he thinks President Obama is out to control Americans through gun control, RFID chips, and vaccines. Without a doubt, NaturalNews is the single worst place to get any real science, hence it is adored by the antivaccine gangsters, because lacking any scientific intellect, NaturalNews is their “evidence”.
In a recent article in NaturalNews, the author repeated the same stories about Dr. Harper that I, and others, have refuted time and again. However, the author of the NaturalNews article took notice of the number of stories that debunked the assertion that she ever made these statements (at least how they were interpreted by the antivaccination hooligans), so the author made this outrageous claim:
But not long after clearing her conscience on this important issue so that she could sleep at night, Dr. Harper basically retracted all of her statements, claiming that media reports citing them were made up. What? The vaccine industry or some other power apparently got to Dr. Harper and convinced her to change her story — either that or she is schizophrenic.
The jackbooted secret agents of Big Pharma apparently “got to Dr. Harper.” Or gave her mind altering drugs to cause schizophrenia. It’s amazing how much power Big Pharma has. Of course, it’s hard for me to write this story with three of those jackbooted agents staring over my shoulder. One of them appears to have the ability to break my skull with his pinky finger.
Back to The Truth™
Sorry, I digressed into the tin-foil hat area too deeply. I now need to go read Paul Offit’s new book, Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine, to clear my mind of the woo on NaturalNews.
Dr. Harper never retracted her statements, because there was nothing to retract. She clarified what she said to anyone who asked, and simply stated that she never said what the antivaccine crowd says she said.
And since there is nearly a decade of published research from Dr. Harper, all of which have been pretty consistent (including an article published June 2013) about her support of the vaccine, there really was absolutely nothing to disavow. But several years ago, Ben Goldacre, a physician who spends time challenging the Pharmaceutical industry for its practices (but is solidly pro-science, and despises junk medicine), actually spoke to Diane Harper. She said,
I did not say that Cervarix was as deadly as cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix could be riskier or more deadly than cervical cancer. I did not say that Cervarix was controversial, I stated that Cervarix is not a ‘controversial drug’. I did not ‘hit out’ – I was contacted by the press for facts. And this was not an exclusive interview.
Maybe Dr. Harper said something to people she later regretted. Maybe as a relatively unknown researcher working her butt off in a lab, to get a little fame was soothing to the ego. Maybe she was intentionally misquoted. But since all the quotes sound similar, my guess is that her comments were taken out a highly nuanced and complex scientific explanation of whether Gardasil has a strong benefit to cost ratio (purely from an economic standpoint).
And typical of the antivaccination world, they steal the information that serves their nefarious goals rather than try to explain the whole story. Given Dr. Harper’s rather consistent support of HPV vaccinations, whatever the case may be, it’s clear she’s not a vaccine denier.
Gardasil saves lives, and Dr. Diane Harper says that.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published in August 2013. It has been completely revised and updated to include more comprehensive information, to improve readability and to add current research.
- Bednarczyk RA, Davis R, Ault K, Orenstein W, Omer SB. Sexual activity-related outcomes after human papillomavirus vaccination of 11- to 12-year-olds. Pediatrics. 2012 Nov;130(5):798-805. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1516. Epub 2012 Oct 15. PubMed PMID: 23071201. Impact factor: 5.119.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescent girls, 2007-2012, and post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, 2006-2013 – United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013 Jul 26;62(29):591-5. PubMed PMID: 23884346.
- Harper DM. Preliminary HPV vaccine results for women older than 25 years. Lancet. 2009 Jun 6;373(9679):1921-2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61045-X. PubMed PMID: 19501728. Impact factor: 39.060.
- Harper DM, Vierthaler SL. Next Generation Cancer Protection: The Bivalent HPV Vaccine for Females. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2011;2011:457204. doi: 10.5402/2011/457204. Epub 2011 Nov 2. PubMed PMID: 22111017; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3216348.
- Klein NP, Hansen J, Chao C, Velicer C, Emery M, Slezak J, Lewis N, Deosaransingh K, Sy L, Ackerson B, Cheetham TC, Liaw KL, Takhar H, Jacobsen SJ. Safety of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine administered routinely to females. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012 Dec;166(12):1140-8. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1451. PubMed PMID: 23027469. Impact factor: 4.140
- Lowy DR, Schiller JT. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines. J Clin Invest. 2006 May;116(5):1167-73. Review. PubMed PMID: 16670757; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1451224. Impact factor: 13.069.
- Markowitz LE, Hariri S, Lin C, Dunne EF, Steinau M, McQuillan G, Unger ER. Reduction in Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence Among Young Women Following HPV Vaccine Introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003–2010. J Infect Dis. (2013). doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit192. Impact factor: 6.410