Merck To Halt Lobbying For Vaccine

theodp writes "Reacting to a furor from some parents, advocacy groups, and public health experts, Merck said yesterday that it would stop lobbying state legislatures to require the use of its new cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, which acts against strains of the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus. The $400, 3-shot regimen was approved by the FDA in June. Later that month, a federal advisory panel recommended that females 11-26 years old be vaccinated. The governor of Texas has already signed an executive order making its use mandatory for schoolgirls."

Comments

What do they think?

[Nasarius]

Seriously, what goes through the minds of these people? That the risk of getting HPV and cervical cancer is currently stopping teenage girls from having sex? How stupidly selfish do you have to be to not want more women to be vaccinated against HPV?

Re:What do they think?

[JimMcc]

Yes... but...

Do we really know for sure that the vaccine is safe? Yes, they've tested it. But there have been medicines before that have been tested and found "safe", only to be pulled from the market after their release.

At this early stage I think, and this is just my $0.02, that it should be readily available, and that the public should be educated about the benefits and risks, so that they can make up their own minds. After there is a proven track record, then consider making it mandatory.

Can you imagine the social impact if the drug were required for all school age girls, then a few years later they find out that there is a devastating long term effect that hadn't been discovered, or worse, had been discovered but was suppressed in the name of profit?

I think we should tread lightly when we consider forcing the public to take a newly released drug.

Re:What do they think?

[Jhon]

How stupidly selfish do you have to be to not want more women to be vaccinated against HPV?

I believe you are misrepresenting the argument against mandatory vaccination.

I don't think ANY reasonable person is against vaccination -- just against MANDATORY vaccination.

You may want to look at this.

Perhaps after more studies there'll be a more compelling reason, say after results of the phase II or phase III studies, but I can still see huge arguments against based on economic reasons. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to make paps available to under served women than it is to vaccinate every woman aged 11-26 -- then every 11 year old every year...

Let me get this straight..

[Anonymous Coward]

Merck produces a vaccine. Merck tells the Government that this is a patented drug that other companies should not be allowed to produce because they thought of it first. Furthermore, they demand that every single female should be forced to buy and use their product at whatever price they set.

Which brings me to my point: FUCK OFF MERCK.

You jackasses think that you should have the exclusive right to manufacture a product and force it on everyone via bribed government officials? That is sick,immoral, and anti-capitalistic.

Do you even know what cervical caner is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I am a pathologist, which means I ACTUALLY SEE CERVICAL CANCERS and unlike you armchair epidemiologists know what we are dealing with here. Cervical cancer is rare these days, but the more pertinent issue is that THIS IS THE FIRST VACCINE AVAILABLE THAT CAN ACTUALLY PREVENT CANCER! Do you understand that, no? well argue your stupid little points about safety and how many it will protect. Do you want to actually improve the health of people? If yes, then you need to favor this vaccine, no matter what your primitive superstitions say. Or your evidence-lacking vaccine fears are.

I guess if you have never seen a pelvic exenteration specimen you may not feel as strongly as I might. Hell, I am putting people in my line of work OUT OF WORK, but it isn't about job security, it is about people's lives. Also, it is about the reduced cost to society in pap smears, colposcopy, and everything else involved in cervical cancer surveillance. I don't think any of you, especially the males understand the enormity of impact this vaccine could have. We are talking billions of dollars and hundreds of lives each year.

Get out of your armchair and learn something before proclaiming.

Re:A little perspective first

[king-manic]

I don't like this because it forces young girls to get vaccinated against a disease that they can prevent by simply not having sex. It's not like measles, which can be transmitted innocently and anonymously. You have to actually have sex to get the virus. Along with this, it will cost taxpayers $400 per junior high school girl. That's gotta be millions of dollars in taxes in each state. You do realize that the vast majority of teen girls lose their virginity by 16 don't you? The current average age is 14 (which is close to the traditional pre 1900 average age). You can make an arguement that we shouldn't fund any vaccinations at all because simply not enrolling your children into school can prevent half of the diseases like measels ect. Sex is normal part of "growing up". And since we put of getting married 15 years longer then we used to (late 20's vs early teens in the past), it's not realistic to expect anyone to wait. No matter what your morals tell you, sex is not some crazied monster out to kill your children. Despite your best efforts your daughter will have sex, and perhaps this little vaccine will lessen the likelyhood that she will suffer from cancer 50 years down the road. I don't know enough about the vaccine to say but your statement is stunningly ignorant.