HPV Vaccine Gets Merck-y
February 22nd, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |The new HPV vaccine developed by Merck has been shown to be pretty effective in protecting against the virus responsible for cervical and other female-specific cancers that kill as many as 4000 women each year. (For the record, my paternal grandmother died from cervical cancer at age 24. I never knew her. My father never really knew her. So preventing cervical cancer is somewhat personal to me.)
Usually, life saving vaccines are looked upon favorably by the general public because they save lives. And while most vaccines come with the risk of side-effects, the side-effects so far reported in association with Gardasil have been deemed ‘minor’ and not far reaching. Yet the public is split on whether use of the vaccine is really a good thing.
For many in the ‘we don’t want it’ camp, the common excuse given for shunning the life-saving medicine is that by innocluating their young daughters against a virus commonly triggered or transmitted by sexual activity their daughters will somehow join a harem and begin sleeping with every male in sight. Of course, this is ridiculous, but then so are many other excuses that hide under the guise of ‘morality.’ I assume that these parents don’t use that same excuse when it comes to the Hepatitis B vaccine, mandated for children in most states, to prevent a disease that is also transmitted through sexual contact.
These anti-Gardasil types at first just denounced the vaccine. But then the state of Texas mandated it as a part of the vaccine cocktails required for children in public schools, and some of these folks went a little nuts even though there was an ‘opt-out’ provision.
For the record (again), I support mandatory vaccines in principal. However, this particular vaccine is still pretty new, and as we learned with another Merck product called Vioxx, sometimes problems don’t show up for years. On that principal, and not on religious or moral grounds, I don’t think that this vaccine should be mandated by state law at this time. Available to anyone who wants to get it? You bet. Covered by insurance companies? Damn straight. But mandated? Too soon, I think.
Of course, news now out that Merck has been pushing for state legislation mandating Gardasil, even offering political donations to grease the wheels of political justice, makes me just a bit more leery of the vaccine, and that is too bad.
You see, if Gardasil is all it is touted to be, the company who produces it should not need be involved in attempts to get legislation passed that requires its product be used by everyone. The vaccine should speak for itself. Merck’s lobbying efforts cast doubts on whether this vaccine is being pushed for public health reasons or just to fatten the accounts of Merck. And that gives more ammunition to the moralists who say that the vaccine shouldn’t be used at all.
It’s too bad really. It seems to be a great preventative cure for HPV and I still plan to have my daughter receive the vaccine once she is old enough. By that time, the vaccine will have even more evidence behind it as to its safety and efficacy.
Unfortunately, too many young women will not receive the vaccine because of misinformed and hubristic parents and the efforts to legally include it as a required vaccine for public health reasons are tainted by political lobbying and suspect pay-for-play type shenanigans.
[tag]Merck, HPV, Gardasil, Texas, public+health, vaccines, health[/tag]
8 Responses to “HPV Vaccine Gets Merck-y”
By Jet Netwal on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
Lot’s of teen-aged boys want a car. I wonder why? Perhaps requiring vaccinations of 16 year old girls would be better than a nation wide attempt at all school aged girls.
By ken grandlund on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
In all fairness Jet, lots of teen-aged girls like to date teen age boys with cars too. Seems that people in the throes of puberty have similar things on their minds.
No really, I think that mandated vaccines are a good thing generally speaking, despite the small risks of side effects. The fact that some vaccines react fatally in some small portion of the population neither diminishes the viability and efficacy of most vaccines nor the grief and loss when a vaccine reacts badly in an individual.
That said, an HPV vaccine should probably be included as a mandatory vaccine at some point in the near future, once it has had a little longer to establish itself. Let us not forget that many young females are exposed to sexual intercourse not of their choice, and for parents to hold back a vaccine that could save their lives is shortsighted at best and narrow minded at worst.
By george on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
The goverment has no right to make this vaccine mandatory for young women. The virus is an std and is transmitted by boys–why aren’t boys being vaccinated? The vaccine is only effective against 4 HPV types out of 200–it gives a false sense of security to the public and makes huge profits for Merck.
By ken grandlund on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
George-
While the HPV vaccine does only protect against 4 types of HPV, those 4 strains are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. So to say “only effective against 4 of 200″ is fairly misleading.
Also, according to the CDC, studies are underway to see if this vaccine will work in males- both to prevent them from passing along the HPV to partners and to possible protect against genital warts, and possibly penila and anal cancer. If the studies now underway show benefits for men, the HPV vaccine will be recommended for them as well.
By Craig R. Harmon on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply
I guess the government has a right to do anything that we let them do. I think the HPV issue is an issue of public health and I think public health issues are issues that the government does have an interest in and should take an interest in. The Constitution, I believe, would place this within the realm of “the general Welfare” for the promotion of which our founding generation constituted our national government.
The false sense of security issue is a rather weak objection, I think, to mandating vaccination. After all, HPV is hardly the only STD or sexually related public health problem. To say that being vaccinated against only 4 types of HPV gives a false sense of security is so only if it is generally unknown that there are other types of HPV out there against which the vaccine does not protect. It is fairly well known now that that is so. It can easily be made even more generally well known through health classes in schools, public service announcements on television and in various magazines widely read by women and teen aged girls.
I guess if Liberals don’t care that it will make huge profits for Merck, why should we Conservatives care that it will?
By Epiphany on Feb 24, 2007 | Reply
I say it’s too new. Merck’s own press release called the vaccine “investigational” before it submitted its Biologics License Application for GARDASIL in 2005. Thalidomide sounded great at first blush in the late 50’s and early 60’s, and dare I mention Vioxx?
By women on the verge on Feb 25, 2007 | Reply
Please, please,please do the research for yourself regarding this vaccine. I did and I was horrified by what I found… and what I posted was only a small percentage of what I found. During the clinical trials 5 girls became pregnant within 30 days of receiving the vaccine. Their babies had genetic abnormalities. Babies born to those within the control group had none. Now consider that Merck has a pregnancy registery for those who become pregnant after receiving the vaccine. Drug companies don’t volunteer to do this out of the kindness of their hearts. My suspicion is that the FDA saw the data and forced Merck to track the vaccine for its potential to cause birth defects. Epiphany is right… anyone remember Thalidomide?? And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Merck has a miserable history… don’t take their word… do the research yourself before deciding to inject your child with Gardasil.