Merck backs down

[Larry_OHF]

Merck, one of the super-giants of medicines, backed down from their lobbying in Washington which would make it a requirement that all nine year old girls get the cervical cancer vaccine. Texas has already wrote it into state law, I hear, because Merck pushed hardest there with their lobbying. However, none of the rest of us have to be forced to, a relief for some of us that saw the requirement as nothing more than a way that this company was trying to ensure they'd make more money.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Cervical cancer is contracted by sexual intercourse like any other STD, and since kids in their preteens are potential for practicing unsafe sex, Merck wanted every girl to be vaccinated for a cancer that would potentially result from that practice.

Religious protestors said that giving kids a vaccine for an STD would make them feel that they no longer had to worry about STDs, especially the younger girls that might not even understand that cervical cancer is the least likely to contract than most other STDs. Maybe they'd feel immune to danger, even to a degree, so they'd be more likely to engage in sexual activity.

For the rest of us that were angry about being forced to get it, we thought that something like this is not like Measles, Mumps, and other diseases that can be taken to school and passed around the class merely for being near other kids. This cancer would only be contracted by chance and that chance was dependent on sexual activity that may not even occur (face it, there are some girls out there that either do not want to or cannot get it on with somebody).

Also...I have seen no proof that a lesbian can get cervical cancer from her partner so to force a drug on somebody that would not need the benefit of that drug to me was against their rights somehow.

[PurpleXVI]

The only way to eliminate something is by complete and utter vaccination, no exceptions.

I can't see any reason why it should not be as required as any other vaccine. It's capable of spreading to anyone and it can potentially have both horribly unpleasant and lethal consequences.

The argument that it makes more kids likely to practice unsafe sex is ridiculous, since when has any teen ever sat down and thought, when he didn't have any condoms: "Gee, the danger of knocking up my girlfriend/catching some STD is present! I had better go take a cold shower instead of getting my sex on!"?

What about children who are molested? Shouldn't they be immune if the molester happens to be infected? It'd just be one more thing to pile on top of all the other crap they'd be going through.

This is also not a cervical cancer vaccine, it's an HPV vaccine.

About a dozen HPV types (including types 16, 18, 31 and 45) are called "high-risk" types because they can cause cervical cancer, as well as anal cancer, vulvar cancer, head and neck cancers, and penile cancer

That's just a tad more than cervical cancer.

Whatever Merck's motives(Current bets are on: Making fat loads of cash.), complete and utter immunization of all children would be ideal.

EDIT: Additionally, there'd never be a large enough number of early life vaccinations unless it's mandatory. Most parents would like to believe that their little girls are going to be sweet and virtuous and never have sex until they're, say, about 31 or so, married, and out of the house. But fact is most of them are likely to have sex when they're around half that age, nothing to do for it, it's been that way ever since the dawn of human history. No age has been more or less "moral" than another, so it's not something that can be educated out of people. I honestly think that most parents are going to delude themselves into thinking their daughters will not have a sex life and therefore will not need the vaccine, and I find it unlikely that a 16-year-old girl will report to her parents that she's going to lose her virginity in the back of a Camaro this weekend so she'd like her HPV vaccine now, thank you very much.

[ 02-21-2007, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[robertthebard]

Ok, but if it's going to be mandated as a law, then it should be free. There are enough mandated things people here have to pay for, such as car insurance. You can drive for 50 years with no mishaps, but you are required by law to make somebody else richer. Is Merck going to be liable if a child is vaccinated, and still gets the disease? HPV, according to the tv commercials I've seen lately, is the most common thing that occurs in women, except maybe that time of the month, yes, I'll probably regret that line, so if the virus is contracted, and does lead to cervical cancers, inspite of the vaccine, which on tv, won't prevent all kinds of cervical cancer, are we still going to hold Merck responsible? If no, then the vaccination shouldn't be legally required. To me, that's like requiring somebody that's never used drugs in their life to go to drug rehab, while paying for it out of pocket.

The measles vaccine prevents you from getting measles, the same is true for the smallpox vaccine. If Merck is pushing this drug to prevent HPV, and thereby prevent cervical cancer, then if somebody that was vaccinated gets either one, they should be held accountable.

[Larry_OHF]

Robert is right...and I should have covered that part of the argument in my post.

As for your stand on it, Purple...What is Denmark doing to save their girls from this cancer? (This is not an American disease). Will they anytime soon be making the drug a requirement or will it be optional, or what? Would you be willing to send a letter to your supreme powers indicating your desire that all girls be made to get this vaccine? Would there be even one girl or woman in Denmark that would be angry at you for your meddling in their life?

[wellard]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Cervical cancer is contracted by sexual intercourse like any other STD,

What!!! are we 100% sure about this claim? The data being pushed down here is that there is an increased risk for people with human papilloma virus ... WAY diffrent than saying 'Cervical cancer IS contracted by' anyone got the real facts on this or is it just the religous right wing on the march again [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[ 02-21-2007, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[robertthebard]

Probably closer to drug company propaganda.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Cervical cancer is contracted by sexual intercourse like any other STD,

What!!! are we 100% sure about this claim? The data being pushed down here is that there is an increased risk for people with human papilloma virus ... WAY diffrent than saying 'Cervical cancer IS contracted by' anyone got the real facts on this or is it just the religous right wing on the march again [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Honestly, I don't really know now. I thought at first that all cases were related to an STD-type way of getting it, but now I am not so sure that it is exclusive to that, per what Purple posted. I'll have to Google it later.

[Larry_OHF]

Okay...I did my homework so I could understand more about this topic before trying to continue with something I did not understand.

HPV INFECTION: Cervical infection with HPV is the primary risk factor for cervical cancer. There are over 80 types of human papillomavirus (HPV). Approximately 30 types are transmitted sexually (passed from one person to another by sexual contact) and can infect the cervix. About half of these have been linked to cervical cancer. However, HPV infection is very common and only a very small number of women infected with untreated HPV will develop cervical cancer. A vaccine to prevent a common type of HPV infection is under study. SEXUAL HISTORY: HPV infections that cause cervical cancer are spread mainly through sexual contact. Women who begin having sexual intercourse at an early age and women who have had many sexual partners are at a greater risk of HPV infection and developing cervical cancer. Some methods used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) reduce the risk of cervical cancer. The use of barrier methods of birth control and/or gels that kill sperm offer some protection but do not completely protect against STDs. USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES: Long-term use of oral contraceptives (5 years or more) increases the risk of cervical cancer. SMOKING: Cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer.

Source: WEBMD.com

Okay, now I see that the cancer comes from that HPV infection, and that the best way to get that infection is with sexual contact with an infected partner. However, it seems that not everybody that has the infection gets the cancer. Also, it appears that regular trips to the OB-GYN is an effective way to prevent the virus from killing anyone with the cancer.

So to bring it back to questions...does this vaccine prevent "all" types of the virus infection, even the non-sexual ones, or is this vaccine only good to prevent against the most commonly occurring version?

Is this a problem that other countries will be addressing now that there is a vaccine or is the world waiting to see if this vaccine is potentially deadly to a person's health in the long term first? (Since this is a new vaccine, who's to say that not every girl that gets it runs the risk of 1 in 5 developing some kind of problem or negative reaction to the drug?)

My new main point...it was too early to assume that this drug was safe for everybody to be forced into using it when we don't know what the long term looks like yet.

Remember this...Merck has really screwed up in the past. The last recall of a drug that was found hazardous to a person's life was a Merck drug. The FDA let something go through without checking it out well enough, and people died!

[wellard]

Getting there Larry ... but still confusing some facts (not delibratly, that is not your style)

" Cervical infection with HPV is the primary risk factor for cervical cancer." note the languague. Primary risk does not in any way mean it causes Cervical cancer only that there is higher risk of getting the cancer over other causes if you have a cervical infection with one of 30 out of 80 types of HPV which may be caught as a sexually transmitted disease.

Strewth poor women
Between the bullshit statements by the religous right wing and the propaganda by the drug companies it is going to be hard for ladies to get the correct information.

There was a thread on Ironworks about this a few months back.

The Australian government is starting a vaccination programme for all schoolgirls next year. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 02-21-2007, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Larry_OHF]

Thanks for pointing that out to me, wellard. I've had trouble in college literature courses with reading something and not getting the full gist of it like I was suppose to, so I am not surprised by your post.

Referring to your mention "propaganda by the drug companies"...this is most likely the cause of my misinformation or bias viewpoint based on what I thought I knew before posting here and reading up on it afterward. I am sure that the TV ads were trying to convince me that my daughters would die of cervical cancer if I did not get her this vaccine. I think I responded the way they wanted me to, and if that was not their intention, that is still the impression that I have from viewing their ads. That is why I said what I did before going to WebMD and reading up on it a bit more, and also by being educated by your posts.

Now. Let's not forget that my original reason for posting this was to let everyone know that Merck has decided not to pursue the requirement agenda now, and have dropped their lobbying. They say it is because of bad press, but I just do not trust drug companies and would not put it past them to know that there is some harm that could come from the drug and have only recently discovered it, and decided that they'd be in a lot of trouble if this were forced on people...so maybe they have decided to take the quiet road for a while...

Another idea as to why they have decided not to pursue this issue and it just now occurred to me...the INSURANCE AGENCIES have bigger lawyers and the insurance people have come out and said NO! We will not pay for this drug...

Or maybe Merck realizes that there are tons of people in the US that have no insurance at all and so the bill for the shot would come out of pocket, but what if people did not get it because they were too poor, or what if they got it and then you could not find them to bill them (ie any illegal immigrant).

I think Merck pulled out for money reasons...not because they were afraid that they were getting bad press...or maybe my first idea is right and they are investigating a potential risk that only recently showed up.

Opinions?