« Remicade’s Hollywood Moment Gets Rocky | Main | Contact Me »

February 21, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834519bc269e200d8351b085f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pro-Cancer Crowd Forces Merck to Cave on Gardasil:

Comments

I'd be inclined to say that the specter of being tagged as a "powerful, behind-the-scenes lobbyist" (and potentially reduced access to state and federal policymakers as a result) probably weighed more heavily in Merck's decision to drop this lobbying effort than any fear of the religious right or the anti-vaccine crowd.

Like the rest of the pharma industry, Merck is going to have to pick its public policy battles very carefully over the next few years and husband its political capital for the fights that really count.

My hunch is that they simply decided to cut their losses on a relatively minor issue (commercially speaking -- from a public health POV it's definitely a major issue and one that the old Merck would have held the moral high ground on) and live to fight another day on bigger issues.

Shame, really, since a guaranteed US market could have generated the revenues to make free distribution of Gardasil in the developing world (where HPV and cervical cancer are rampant and deadly) economically attractive to Merck.

O tempore, o mores...

Jim,

Come on - how can you label those who prefer to take a cautious approach to this as "pro-cancer" and "anti-science"? Would you have labeled people taking a go-slow approach to thalidomide in the 50's as Luddites as well? Perhaps there may be other motivators for those of a pro-life persuasion than a death-wish desire for their offspring to contract STDs. By implying otherwise, you cheapen the whole discussion.
This debate will be best engaged by not implying that anyone who differs with you must therefore be hanging about the borders of the Nation of Extremism.

I'm dumbfounded by the proposition that opposition to Gardasil is a "pro-life" position.

How, exactly?

Ooops, my mistake - Jim had mentioned "pro-family" and somehow I mismapped that in my pea brain to "pro-life."

Swap the two terms; the thrust of the point I'm trying to make is the same. It is quite possible for a person to be pro-family, not want one's offspring to get STDs and die of cancer, and still not be jumping immediately on the Gardasil bandwagon. As the very last sentence in the original post implies...all the data about a new treatment isn't always in for a long time...

Swap the two terms; the thrust of the point I'm trying to make is the same. It is quite possible for a person to be pro-family, not want one's offspring to get STDs and die of cancer, and still not be jumping immediately on the Gardasil bandwagon. As the very last sentence in the original post implies...all the data about a new treatment isn't always in for a long time...

http://guccihandbag.100webspace.net/
http://bicycleframe.sitebooth.com
http://frame.sitebooth.com

Without Prescription

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

 
© 2007 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved. Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy. Additional Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.