I wonder if any efforts have been made to conduct a deep review of clinical trials to see if there are patterns of protocol design that are likely to lead to underreporting of adverse effects.<p>As (unfortunately) a user of a number of prescription medications, I have encountered adverse effects that were considered uncommon, yet heard about similar issues from fellow users. Of course, this is anecdata, so one can draw no conclusions, but I have a nagging suspicion that enough digging by people who truly understand statistics will find flaws, perhaps major ones.<p>Not likely to happen, though.
>> Not owning up to that uncertainty, when it is legitimate, likely will only slow scientific progress. In the controversial realm of vaccines, it will also create fodder for conspiracy theorists spreading overblown or unfounded fears among an already distrustful public.<p>Just when did "the realm of vaccines" become "controversial"?<p>Also, one thing I couldn't figure out from the article is whether Lyng and the other women who suffered after taking part in the vaccine trials actually received the vaccine, rather than a placebo. Is that information even recorded?
On conflict of interest during Gardasil's testing in India: <a href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401" rel="nofollow">http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401</a>
"JayaJan Pharmaceutical Research in India was one of the companies with which Merck had a contract to test Gardasil. Like most of the industry, Merck increasingly outsources its clinical trials to Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in areas of the world where trial subjects are plentiful, operating costs are low, and regulations lax. .. Critics point out that CROs can come with built-in problems. Conflicts of interest can arise when CROs are paid royalties only after a drug is approved rather than being paid a set fee that is independent of how safe or effective the drug turns out to be. Problems can also arise because CROs know that favorable findings mean that research into a test drug will continue, and they may also believe that results that please the hiring corporation can lead to future contracts. "[C]ompanies know that the farther the compound moves through the research cycle, the more money they can raise," Nature reported."<p>Also on India and a Gardasil Supreme Court case questioning safety:
<a href="http://sanevax.org/india-supreme-court-hpv-vaccine-controversy-continues/" rel="nofollow">http://sanevax.org/india-supreme-court-hpv-vaccine-controver...</a><p>And from Mercola questioning its effectiveness:
<a href="https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/29/why-india-has-stopped-giving-hpv-vaccines.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/...</a><p>In general from Marcia Angell: <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-co...</a>
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."