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
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?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
These companies shouldn't even be allowed to contribute $1. As a matter of fact, government figures shouldn't be allowed to receive any money from any businesses. The sole reason that a business would contribute money to a politician is to get some favors. That is the bottom line. This story stinks and stinks real bad.
gasmonso http://religousfreaks.com/And the information on the 10 things you might know is wrong.
1. The blog states the vaccine only decreases the chance--that's wrong. If you have not been previously infected with HPV then there is a 100% effective rate.
2. In 2007 the incidence of cervical cancer went up.
3. Yep, it is the most expensive, however it is the ONLY vaccine which prevent cancer and DEATH. (And yeah it made $70 million, chump change for a company which made $22 billion in 2006).
4. Wrong. Gardasil is already a part of this program. Having a mandate will not change liability at all.
5. There is 5 year data now with another 3 1/2 year data prior to the launch of the drug; that's 8 1/2 years of data now.
6. This is true, however, in the current data there has been no wane in the immunity; and vaccines typically never need booster shots due to the way vaccines work.
7. Yes, neither was any other drug on the market.
8. Pure speculation. There has been no proof that aluminum is harmful. Gardasil was tested with Hepatitis B because it has the same aluminum compound and has been on the market for 19 years.
9. There are currently studies going on with boys and safety data is already available for boys in the label. Also, the EU and Australia are already using on boys.
10. It's ironic that the blog ends with making an uninformed decision when all the facts are wrong on the site.
Yeah, this seems like a shrill for Gardasil but I have personal knowledge of this drug and sometimes setting the facts straight on a drug which is saving lives need some truth out there among the free range blogs which aren't providing accurate information.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
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.
... because HPV vaccination prevents AIDS and pregnancy.
http://outcampaign.org/
Why not? Choosing to remain unvaccinated hurts others.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's interesting that this perfectly reasonable objection seems to only be used as a rationalization for other, borderline-bizarre, "moral" objections. I could almost get behind this one, but most of the people questioning the safety of the drug really aren't interested in its safety per se, and wouldn't ever be satisfied by any amount of evidence as to its efficacy, because they're just using it as a sham argument.
I'm not saying you are, but as I've been following the progress of this issue, it's seemed to progress something like this:
1) Religious-right insists that anything which might make sex 'safer' is a tool of Satan, and has no purpose besides corrupting their little darlings.
2) Basically everyone else raises eyebrows, questions their sanity.
3) Religious-right folks have a powwow, try to think up rational justification for #1. Failing that, they find a totally different, seemingly rational justification for their position, but which has nothing to do with their actual motives.
4) Everyone else spends a whole lot of time and effort responding to the seemingly rational objection from #3, but are just wasting their time, because the real objection is not rational or practical. It's entirely religious (and somewhat Freudian).
So, in short, you have a good point, but it's going to be an uphill battle to get anyone to take it seriously.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There are issues aside from Merck doing this and that--it's all the usual influence peddling which would be expected in the insipidly broken system that is US health care. Merck is not the target here. One target is the FDA that is utterly incompetent and immorally charged to make life or death decisions with approvals and expensive bureaucracies. Once the FDA required proof for efficacy (instead of just safety as they had been doing for 60 years prior) is probably the single most important milestone on the downward spiral.
Given the cost of drug development, I'm surprised it's only $400. Vaccines are a one-time profit for Merck until their patent runs out. Given the alternative costs of therapies (guaranteed revenue), there's a good chance Merck just might not be as evil as they are made to be. $400 doesn't get you much in the medical world these days--not even an hour with a specialist at my doctor's office. Again, this is symptomatic of a broken system where someone else always ends up paying the cost of medical treatment or you never knowing until the bill bites you. We should be so lucky that the established price is at the forefront of the discussion.
Besides, it works against a virus, a communicable disease that can be conceivably arrested and perhaps eradicated, for far less than the cost of the effective treatment for the cancer it causes. Treat it forever or squash it now. Shouldn't something this simple be prioritized? How is this different from everything else we get shots for if people who don't have health insurance can get it, and those that don't want it won't have it forced down their throat?
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
More to the point, I'm not sure people realize just how easy it is to contract HPV. Not only that, but there really aren't any tests for males. It usually shows no symptoms, though I think that certain types result in genital warts.
Sex isn't even necessary to contract it. A large chunk of the adult population has it and doesn't know it. I could have it, for all I know. But it causes cervical cancer.
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
By mandating in Texas it allows low-income families to get the vaccine without insurance. And by mandating the vaccine it forces insurance companies to pay for it so your out of pocket cost is now lower.
And if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated they can opt out.
p.s. The large sum of money was $6,000 out of the $24 "million" of his campaign contributions. And there is bills in 20 other states which are going to require girls to get the vaccine. And if his brother worked for Merck why isn't is printed in all the news articles? That would be great at selling more papers.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
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
Lets vaccinate everybody...and then once its done, we will vaccinate them again, against the diseases that come forth from the previous vaccination (which of course wouldn't have happened otherwise).
You really seem to misunderstand vaccination, along with the people who modded you insightful. Vaccination works by introducing a biological compound (usually a dead virus) that is similar to a real virus. By exposing the immune system to this agent, the immune system is stimulated so that when you encounter a real virus, your immune system reacts very strongly and prevents the virus from causing disease. Vaccines work very, very well for many, many diseases that are otherwise difficult or impossible to treat (there is a reason smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the earth).
Vaccination only works when you want to stimulate the immune system to fight off a foreign invader (viral or bacterial). It doesn't work against anything else.
I mean the long-term effects. It is well known that any so-called cure of something like cancer or such a disease (or for that reason any unnatural medicine) has side-effects.
Many medications have side effects, true. But the benefits usually outweigh the side effects. Go talk to someone who survived smallpox without a vaccine. There aren't many of them. Ask them if they would rather have had a vaccine.
Unnatural medicine? WTF? Is there some magic "natural medicine" that doesn't have side effects? If you go into your common hippy, granola, organic remedy store, there are all sorts of natural products that have side effects. Some can even kill you in large doses. Just like prescription drugs.
For example, radiation to cure cancer actually increases the probability of some other cancers, introduces problems in progenies (or the possibility thereof).
You are correct, the radiation used to treat rapidly growing cancers, can increase the likelyhood of other cancers. But if your untreated rapidly growing cancer will likely kill you in 12 months, would you trade that risk for in increased likelyhood of other cancers in 20 years?
Incidentally, do you know what is the best way to survive cancer? Don't get cancer in the first place. So eat lots of fruits & vegetables, exercise, and don't smoke. And get this new vaccine if you're female.
The whole "force" thing is a red herring; the government isn't really forcing anyone to do anything. You can opt out of any of the vaccines, including the HPV one. So people who are hell-bent on not getting their kids vaccinated can still do so.
Really, the purpose of making the vaccine required, rather than optional, is to require the huge 'silent majority' of people who don't have a strong opinion either way, and will just do whatever is easiest and requires the least amount of effort from them, to get their kids vaccinated. Without a requirement to do so, they won't bother, regardless of the long-term benefits. They just want to get the kid off to school; they'll schedule a doctor's appointment and cough up the cash if that's what it takes, but otherwise they never will.
Basically, the purpose of the requirement is to make sure girls whose parents are too stupid, ignorant, or lazy to have an opinion either way, don't get punished later on. Parents with a strong opinion in favor of vaccination aren't really affected, because their daughters would have gotten it anyway, and parents who are strongly opposed can always opt out along with the Christian Scientists.
This isn't really a policy that's aimed at the extreme ends of the spectrum, it's aimed at the middle, but as usual it's really being argued on by people who really have the least at stake.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This isn't assuming that people will have sex as teenagers. This is assuming that the majority of people will eventually have sex. Getting vaccinated early catches those who do have sex early. And you don't even have to assume that teenagers will have sex... studies have shown that the majority of people have lost their virginity by the time they are 18. It's a statistic, not an assumption.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
A few more interesting tidbits:
-- At least 80% of women will have been infected by at least one strain of genital HPV by the time they reach 50 years of age.
-- Condoms are only about 70% effective at preventing HPV transmission
-- In 2007, approximately 11,150 cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and about 3,670 women will die from the disease. For comparison, seatbelts saved 13,274 lives in 2001 in the US.
-- Somewhere near 10% of people have had visible genital warts. These people may still be able to transmit the virus after the warts are gone.
-- HPV can be transmitted from a mother to baby during birth, so it is even possible to get HPV from a virgin.
-- The HPV vaccine does not contain thimerosal/mercury.
This vaccine has nothing at all to do with attending public school. It's not an airborne disease, and so isn't something you could possible contract at school. The idea that states are requiring it for students is overstepping their authority, and corruption, in the most blatant terms.
This is totalitarianism, pure and simple. The state now tells you what medicines you must take, and you have no choice in the matter. Worried about side-effects? Worried about taking unnecessary medication? Too bad. It's the law.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If you only vaccinate half of the population, you are sure to never wipe out the virus. So there will always be demand for this $400 shot until the patent expires and Merck patents a vaccine that covers those 4 virusses and 4 new ones.
I wonder if this is what Merck intended when they were lobbying for it. It wouold be much more cost effective if a) the vaccine was sold at the true marginal cost and b) the gouvernment would vaccinate everybody under 40. The coverage woould be so much wider that those few percent religio-fanatics that object to it would not matter too much.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
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.