First Cancer Vaccine Involved In Court Battle.

October 7, 2006

Print this page 'Fear bid' on cancer vaccineNatasha Robinson07oct06AN allegedly illegal marketing campaign designed to strike "fear, uncertainty and doubt" into the minds of doctors prescribing the world's first cancer vaccine - developed by Australian of the Year Ian Frazer - has been revealed in an explosive court battle.Desperate to gain a slice of the potential billion-dollar industry spawned by Professor Frazer's discovery of a vaccine to prevent cervical

cancer, the Australian arm of multinational GlaxoSmithKline has been accused of marketing its rival vaccine to doctors before being given federal government approval. Doctors were paid to participate in telephone interviews as part of a project conducted by contracted marketing firms, it was alleged by CSL Ltd in the Federal Court in Melbourne. The marketing firms allegedly approached at least 300 doctors and sent them an "information sheet" comparing the vaccine developed by Professor Frazer and CSL to a rival vaccine also based on his work. This was despite the fact that the Therapeutic Goods Administration has yet to review the rival vaccine, Cervarix, for registration. In an affidavit, CSL's pharmaceutical division sales and marketing director, John Anderson, said the tactics used by GlaxoSmithKline to promote Cervarix were based

on striking "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" in doctors' minds about the rival vaccine. According to Dr Anderson's evidence, Gardasil, which has TGA approval and was launched to the market in late August, had a potential market of $1.2billion open to it if every eligible person received the full three-course dose of Gardasil. Dr Anderson also said he was concerned that alleged misinformation spread by GlaxoSmithKline could influence members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which is deciding whether to approve a national plan to vaccinate 12-year-old girls at school. GlaxoSmithKline disputed the claims, which judge Mark Weinberg ruled were overstated. The company told the court that by bringing the legal action, CSL was "seeking to secure a monopoly" for the supply and sale of Gardasil. Professor Frazer refused to buy

into the stoush yesterday. "Any issue which relates to the relative merits of the two vaccines I have decided it would be inappropriate for me to comment on," he told The Weekend Australian. In the Federal Court this week, CSL lost its bid to force GlaxoSmithKline to abandon its Cervarix marketing campaign. In rejecting the company's bid for immediate relief, Judge Weinberg ruled there were serious issues to be decided at trial. Such issues include CSL's claims that GlaxoSmithKline misled doctors by implying that Cervarix gave protection against two additional strains of the HPV virus, thereby giving 10 per cent more protection against all cervical cancers than Gardasil. Justice Weinberg did not have to decide at this week's interlocutory hearing whether the company had breached laws including the Trade Practices Act and the Therapeutic Goods Act by giving the impression

Cervarix was already approved by the TGA. The matter was set down for a four-day trial beginning on November 13. privacy terms © The

Australian "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.