Merck wouldn't back out out of the goodness of its heart. In my oh-so-humble opinion, pharmaceutical companies are worse than the tobacco companies... I sense there's something at work here that we don't know about.

That being said, I'm torn about the whole thing. I don't think vaccination should really be a requirement until we know long-term effects, but I also think it's important to be vaccinated. I suppose the only people who lose out here are the young women, and the parents, who lack the proper information or wisdom to make an informed decision about vaccination.

from the original article "Merck said it will continue other education efforts to encourage widespread use of Gardasil" reading between the lines that says to me that they are not backing down on the promotion of the drug just changing there tactics.

Dont get me wrong I agree with you that drug company actions should always be held with suspicion and contempt but I do not read into this a backdown.

A couple of points in here...

Other "mandated" vaccinations are not necessarily free. You may be able to go to a county health clinic and get them for free or minimal charges, but if you have your doctor do it during a visit, there's a cost.

I put mandated in quotes because I'm not so sure it is. I think there are trade-offs... like schools that won't let you in unless you've been vaccinated. Not the same as a mandate, but a close cousin.

It would certainly be interesting to have been a fly on the wall during Merck's discussions about whether to continue lobbying. Was it because of pressure? Bad press? The belief that enough lobbying's been done?

I mean, as a dad, the thought of my daughter dying from cancer doesn't really appeal to me. And here there's a vaccine that can apparently eliminate on of those forms of cancer and save her life? What's the value today of a hug ten or twenty years from now? A whole lot more than $20, $50, or $100 bucks... or whatever the cost of the vaccine is.

As for drug companies and issues with their drugs, is there one drug company who's never had a drug recalled? I'm not sure... and while it's worthy to note their past, it's not a complete indicator of the future.

I'll be following the developments, to be sure.

<font color= 7fff00> This quote is the sort of disgusting mindset that almost beggers belief .. </font>

"Alan Kaye, chairman of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition is hopeful that the vaccine will be universally used. He said: "I don't think anyone wants to stop a cancer vaccine." But some things are more important than saving lives. To some parents, promoting premarital chastity is one of these. Their reasoning is that if their daughters feel protected from one sexually transmitted disease (STD) out of the dozens of STDs that are in wide circulation, then there might be a slight increase in their level of sexual experimentation. It is a judgment call for the parents whether risking that increase among millions of teens is more important than saving about seven American women's lives a day.

The battle between conservative Christian groups and public health groups will still happen. However, it will probably be centered at the individual state level over attempts to require vaccination for all female students."


<font color= 7fff00> I shudder that people can put their daughters life at risk over this issue because of ignorant religious bullshit like that. No wonder Merck is having to review it's policy. </font>

[ 02-22-2007, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

Ah, I know how you feel mate. These are the same people that didn't want condoms in school because it would "promote" sexual activity. As a parent, I'd rather my daughter practiced safe sex as opposed to just taking chances. Of course, my daughter is in her 20's now, but the fact is, that's how I felt about it once she was old enough to think about it. There is no bright side to teens having sex, but the absolute best negative consequence is pregnancy, and hey, we don't really need that either.

If a vaccination is to be compulsory, then it should be provided free of charge.

Kids these days are not completely stupid, but when it comes to sexual activity, there isn't much that will scare them off, even those of us that believe we know the dangers and are cautious, still feel the same way all teenagers do (well im not a teenager anymore, but I was a few weeks ago :D )

Anyways, I think that despite the company's intentions, the vacination can have some major benefits. But I also believe things like that should be free of charge.

[ 02-25-2007, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Hivetyrant ]

Capitalists, socialists... we all want to get to the same place [img]smile.gif[/img] One group wants it for free, and the other wants to be paid to take others there... [img]smile.gif[/img]

When you say "free", you mean subsidized. Rest assured, someone, somewhere, is paying.

True Bung, but if I may try and clarify Hive's and Mems point is that it should be the government paying for it so that a child does not suffer because her parents are poor.

I am undecided about making it compulsory though.

I'm pretty decided. If it's cumpulsory, then the government pays, and if there are "unfortunate" side effects, then Merck pays. Imagine that class action lawsuit.