Slashdot Mirror
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."
To put it in perspective Rick Perry had $24 million in contributions the same year Merck gave him $6,000. If you really think he was motivated by such a small donation you haven't seen what it takes to get things done in government.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
This is not just about morality, sex, and saving people from cancer.
It's also (mostly) about forcing people to receive drugs.
If they can force you to take drugs that might save you from cancer you might catch from sex you might have, where are the limits to what they can force you to take?
The FDA's lack of approval is silly. And Merck has studies in men going right now which will soon remedy that.
I think you just answered your own question, or at least responded to your own argument, there.
There's probably no FDA approval for men, because Merck didn't submit any data for men, which they didn't do, because they didn't do studies on men. They didn't do studies on men, because it wasn't as cost-effective, because there are more straight women in the world than there are gay men.
I don't think there's any active anti-homosexual agenda there, it's just economics. Straight or otherwise 'majority' people are going to get drugs for themselves approved first, because if you're a drug company, it's most profitable to get your drug out to the biggest market first. Once you've got the big market served, then it makes sense to go after the niches. It sounds like that's exactly what Merck is doing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I'm encouraged by the tone of this discussion. There seem to be a lot of people here who will see that their daughters are vaccinated if/when they have daughters. It hasn't been that long ago that the PAP test itself wasn't covered by most insurance plans because cervical cancer was limited to only one sex. Yes, that was the reason commonly given. Public outcry and the obvious benefits of the test caused insurance companies to re-think that one.
The problem here is that the religious right is being its usual shrill self and is drowning out any potentially legitimate reasons there might be for parents not to get the immunization for their daughters. One such reason might be a desire to wait and be certain the vaccine is actually safe and effective. We've seen a lot of drugs taken off the market recently because of unforeseen dangers and side effects. (Anti-arthritic drugs come to mind.) However there are enough lunatics around who equate the HPV vaccine with enabling their teenage daughters to have sex without fear. I can imagine that conversation: Don't have sex, you can get cancer from it. It's to be hoped that these idiots don't drown out the voices of reason. It's interesting that they either (a) haven't succeeded in convincing their daughters of their message, or (b) want to control the morals of other peoples' daughters.
At this point, mandatory immunizations for school seem to cover what used to be thought of as infectious "childhood diseases" such as measles, mumps, diphtheria, polio, and all the others. Those caused massive epidemics in the past. The difference here is that cervical cancer won't run through the schools like wildfire endangering everyone who breathes the common air.
On balance, I suppose I'd rather see the vaccine made mandatory than to see it become a privilege of those who can afford it.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
I hear you... The one that has been getting at me is the chicken pox vaccine. Having a 2 year old, I have recently been through all of the literature on this particular vaccine. The rational for it seems to boil down to "it will save you money, and be less of a hassle". They make sure to let you know that since the vaccine isn't really that old, your kid might need to get a booster in 16 to 18 years. This would be a minor inconvenience to save some of them from getting chicken pox as a kid. After all, we all know that the 18-25 year old set are some of the most future thinking, least risk taking, and most well insured people on the planet, right?
It seems asinine to me that a vaccine is being almost universally pushed that trades a major childhood inconvenience for a chance at a life threating adult illness. We better hope that a booster shot is not necessary after 16-20 years, or we are sitting on the verge of an honest to goodness plague.
As a pathologist, you are well aware of treatment options and how frequently (or infrequently, I should say) actual cancer shows up, say CIS -- or even HSIL.
Do you really think it's wise to spend tens of billions in the US alone -- and close to a billion a year for every year after that on a solution just out of phase I testing? Don't get me wrong -- I like the vaccine and am hopeful phase II and III studies will show a much greater lenth of protection -- and perhaps prevent abnormal changes in pre-exposed women who get vaccinated. I'm not ready to make that leap. I'm honestly not sure I'd ever be ready for that leap. Thats a HUGE expense and the money has to come from somewhere.
Disclaimer: I've provided aid in a number of studies following HPV, CIN I, II, III, etc... and have been listed as a contributer in a few research papers. I've also been asked to help facilitate data collection for a number of post-vaccination studies.
Volume might reduce prices, and affect the economics, of course. I didn't see anything in that article (I admit I skimmed it) that discussed the expense of treating cervical cancer. It's rare, yes, but that's still a few thousand women every year (and many of them die), and I never heard that treating cancer was cheap.
But imagine someone came up with a vaccine for tooth decay, and we'll assume it was expensive, too. Would you argue that it's cheaper to provide (assumed less effective) dentistry to 'underserved' kids and adults? (Oh, and you didn't advance the 'moral' argument, but this analogy makes plain how stupid it is. How many people would argue seriously against a 'dental caries' vaccine because you can avoid tooth decay by good behavior, and it might encourage kids to eat more sweets leading to more obesity?)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Let's not forget that the same strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer have been associated with causing oral cancer. It will be interesting to see if widespread vaccination will reduce that rate as well.
One of the tenets of Christianity is that after one has become Born Again, his or her past is gone and forgotten. What if the young man alluded to above was a gay slut before he converted, but has ever since been celibate? Is he likely to be "revealing" his sordid past to the Pastor's daughter he's about to marry? Or are we to expect that by simply donating a few Dollars to Creflo A Dollar he'll be disinfected and "made whole, restored to his intended pre-fall perfection"?
And what about my son? He claims to be intent to remain celibate till marriage (he's 14, let's see if he still has this attitude in 5 years time...). Isn't he at risk if the girl he falls for has anything other than a "perfect" past?
It seems to me that not only is there loud shouts of "only celibacy really works" (and yes. celibacy DOES work, but it's totally realistic to expect everyone to do that, or more precisely not do it...), but this whole argument from the religious right and from the "Women's movement" smacks of "all evil is born of woman". Seriously, immunising little girls against a STD will turn them into little 2-bob tunnel-cunted gutter sluts that will screw anyone that moves?
The fact is that such am immunisation will probably not drive a kid towards sexual activity in any way. The real drivers are surely that effectiveness of parents and teachers in giving these kids self-respect and in them gaining a real appreciation for the real issues of STDs and the emotional costs of sexual behaviour.
I find this whole debate rather ridiculous, except for the implications for human and women's rights. Why do you Americans let the wacko right dictate so much rubbish?
DISCLAIMER:
I am a practising Christian. I am a Socialist and active supporter of our Political Left. I am not an American.