Who's Afraid of Gardasil? (The Nation)

[marmar]

Who's Afraid of Gardasil?
Karen Houppert


The HPV vaccine story has gotten all tangled up.

As recently as June 8, 2006, public health advocates, progressives and many parents were celebrating a huge victory: The Food and Drug Administration had approved Merck's new vaccine Gardasil, a shot series that would help protect girls from cervical cancer and genital warts. To their continuing delight, the Centers for Disease Control's immunization committee recommended less than a month later that the shots immediately be given to all females between the ages of 9 and 26. The committee acted on persuasive data indicating that the vaccine, which prevents the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), works best before girls are sexually active.

Human papillomavirus is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world, and most women have had it-- 80 percent of US women, by the CDC's estimates. Often it goes away on its own, without its carrier's awareness. But each year hundreds of thousands of women and girls in the United States develop persistent infections from it, more than 10,000 get cervical cancer and 3,700 die from the cancer.

Gardasil, given in a series of three shots, protects against four strains of HPV. Two of those strains cause 70 percent of the nation's cervical cancer cases, and two of them cause 90 percent of genital warts. This new vaccine, widely given, has the potential to make cervical cancer almost obsolete here.

All good news, right?

Apparently not.

Today, as thirty-one state legislatures consider mandating the vaccine for middle school girls, skepticism about the wisdom of embarking on this swift and widespread inoculation program has bubbled up from critics who span the political spectrum. These strange bedfellows include Christian conservatives and their abstinence-only ilk, who have long argued that safe sex encourages profligate sex; a slew of Big Pharma critics, who see how Merck (which stands to make $4 billion a year on the vaccine by most estimates) is angling to corner this huge new vaccine market; the growing antivaccine movement, which objects to all such school-entry requirements; the parental-rights folks with a libertarian strain, who bridle at any mandates regarding their children's health; and a smattering of women's health advocates, who worry that the pace of the vaccine's introduction is jeopardizing its ultimate success. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/houppert

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. I think people are tired of

being guinea pigs for pharma's profits.

[nosillies]

3. I would have gladly been a guinea pig and let them profit as much as they wanted

If only this vaccine had been around when I was a young girl -- I could have been spared lots of pain, fear, and doctor's visits. I wouldn't have hesitated to try something that could have improved my health and potentially saved many lives. Although I don't have a daughter, if I ever do, I won't hesitate to get her vaccinated. And I'm sure there are many cancer, HIV, etc. patients out there who are very glad that there are people willing to be guinea pigs for the sake of scientific advancement, pharmaceutical profits be damned. This is not a trite and simplistic good vs. evil argument -- it's just not that black and white.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. And I am deeply sorry for your personal pain

and I am not being trite here, but this is NOT a "public health emergency" as Gov. Perry said. We are not talking about smallpox, polio, influenza, or even AIDS here.

We are dealing with an amoral industry trying to maximize profits on something they feel they can market.

I have 2 daughters. I can accept the fact they will have sex. I can even live with the odds they might get sick someday. I could not live with myself were they to get sick because I ran out and got them vaccinated against something they MIGHT get, especially years before they are sexually active.

I hope you can see the bigger picture.

Cheers.

[nosillies]

5. We both totally see the bigger picture, they're just different pictures!

Having had health issues myself, and having seen someone die from cervical cancer caused by HPV, there's no way I would not protect a girl from a virus that infects most sexually active women, and from something that can kill her DEAD, not just make her sick.

And big pharma definitely sucks in so many ways, but no way in hell I would let my political beliefs endanger my children. What should I say to my sick child who comes down with whooping cough, for example? Hey, sorry you feel bad, sorry I didn't get you vaccinated, but at least Mommy didn't cave in to capitalism and allow Merck to make money off of you? Then should I let him die because some other pharma company makes money off the treatment drugs? To me, letting them be susceptible to life-threatening diseases is endangering them, but I realize others fear mercury or adverse reactions or drugs in general more -- and that's their business.

I would NEVER be in favor of forced vaccinations. I am a big believer in individuals making all medical decisions. I just would hate to see political leanings of any stripe make it difficult for anyone to get the health care options they choose to have.

If I were anti-vaccine because of profit-turning, then I'd have to be anti-lots of important medicines -- in fact, I'd have to be against about 90% of the products I use on a daily basis. It's not realistic for me to boycott all profitable entities. Hell, I'd have to boycott my husband, as he brings home a paycheck.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. Those are good points

I was just addressing the one that I get hit with all the time, the "Don't you believe what the scientists say?"

Well, no. Sorry. Not anymore.

And the funniest thing is, sometimes this question comes from people who deny even more basic science like evolution, natural selection, carbon dating, and the speed of light.

I am not against profits, they are what makes the world go round. I am against profits being made with scare tactics, bad science, and marketing plans.

The fact is, whenever it seems like something is controversial, the people who educate themselves early on are looked on as freaks, malcontents, or worse when they point out potential problems.

Not just in medicine, but public policy, technology... whatever.

I have been down this road so many times. Am I sometimes wrong? YES. Is it worth it. Yes, to me it is.

[MADem]

2. Governor Goodhair and MERCK were the ones who tossed petrol on the flames

A couple of things set off alarm bells. First, what was the pro-abstinence Republican Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, doing fast-tracking this vaccine by issuing an executive order that would make the shots compulsory for all sixth grade girls? This made everyone sit up and say, hmmm. (His conservative constituents expressed their befuddlement by screaming bloody murder. Perry did his best to mollify them in a linguistic high-wire act that laced the language of abortion foes with reproductive rights rhetoric: "While I understand the concerns expressed by some, I stand firmly on the side of protecting life. The HPV vaccine does not promote sex, it protects women's health.")

But that was only the beginning of Perry's problems--and by extension the problems many state politicians were having as they tried to get the vaccine mandated. The press discovered Perry's ties to Merck: Not only did his former chief of staff now work as a lobbyist for Merck but the Governor had accepted $6,000 in campaign contributions from Merck's political action committee. It didn't look good. ..... A nonprofit called Women in Government, comprising female state legislators, has been behind the push to make the vaccine compulsory, educating members about its value and urging them to introduce bills in their respective states requiring the shots--even going so far as to offer sample wording for the legislation on its website. It turns out Merck--whoops!--was a big WIG donor.

Fueling everybody's mistrust was Merck's own image problems. As maker of the arthritis drug Vioxx, which may have been responsible for 28,000 deaths before it was withdrawn from the market in September 2004, Merck was, well, suspect. Especially since it stands to make a bundle by charging $360 for each shot series. And it has a motive to corner the market quickly: GlaxoSmithKline is hot on its heels with an HPV vaccine of its own that it hopes to introduce before the end of the year. What's more, if it's lucky Merck stands to double its money. When seeking approval for the vaccine, the company also submitted data on clinical trials for Gardasil and boys. Though the vaccine thus far appears safe for young men, it may be more complicated to prove it effective--and to sell to parents. (After all, the cancer-preventing imperative is more circuitous: Boys aren't the ones being protected from cancer; their future partners are.)

In an effort to defuse the controversy, Merck backed off a bit in late February, issuing a statement saying, "We are pleased that Gardasil has been so widely embraced and do not want any misperception about Merck's role to distract from the ultimate goal of fighting cervical cancer, so Merck has re-evaluated its approach at the state level and we will not lobby for school requirements for Gardasil."