Yesterday I linked to an article in Discover stating the marketing for the HPV vaccine for boys was a lot stronger than the evidence.
Here are snippets from the follow-up (obviously go read the whole thing for proper context):
There are many, many instances in which researchers have promised cures and interventions that were expected to work based on eminently reasonable logic, but did not pan out.
...
Conclusive studies with the most important, clinically relevant end points should precede wide uptake of any intervention. The data currently rely on surrogate end points (markers of possible cancer) and are simply not conclusive. So we can’t truly say how effective the vaccine is.
...
The burden of proof regarding any new intervention should be on “them that sells their wares.” Right now, the data from the manufacturer-sponsored studies are far from conclusive, which brings us back to the problem neatly summed up by Steven Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic researcher and FDA advisor who’s seen many logical interventions that failed: “The road to hell is paved with biological plausibility.”
How Effective Is the HPV Vaccine at Preventing Cancer? A Closer Look… - The Crux at Discover.
