BrandweekNRX: Pro-Cancer Crowd Forces Merck to Cave on Gardasil

February 21, 2007

Pro-Cancer Crowd Forces Merck to Cave on Gardasil

As soon as it began winning accolades for its campaign for Gardasil (the HPV vaccine for teenage girls), Merck says, 'Never Mind!' The company has abandoned its lobbying effort to persuade states to make HPV vaccines mandatory in schools, it says here. HPV causes cervical cancer, which can be fatal. This is a significant victory for the anti-science/pro-cancer crowd. “They believe the timing for the school requirements is not right,” says Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's executive director for medical affairs. When would be the right time, exactly? Currently, Texas is the only state mandating the shots. Any scientist will appreciate what this means: The Lone Star state has become an isolated test group for the effectiveness of the vaccine. The rest of the U.S. is the control group. In 20,30 and 40 years time we'll see if the women of Texas have less HPV and fewer cancers. In the meantime, feel free to ask the "pro-family" people why it is that they want their daughters to get STDs and die of cancer. Because I just don't understand it. And if my failure to understand this makes me "biased," as John Mack says, so be it. One final note: My colleague/competitor over at Pharmalot is also wrong on this issue. This is an important argument that Merck needs to win: Vaccines need to be mandatory, otherwise public health--meaning your health--is compromised. We're living in a world where people increasingly "don't believe in" science, leading to such widely disseminated and dangerous nonsense which you can see listed and rebuffed here. *Merck: Please don't embarass me by hiding any adverse event info on this drug, mm-kay?

Posted on February 21, 2007 | Permalink

Technorati Tags: gardasil, merck, pharmalot

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...

Posted by: Bruce Grant | February 21, 2007 at 12:50 PM

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.

Posted by: Steve Woodruff | February 21, 2007 at 01:02 PM

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

How, exactly?

Posted by: Bruce Grant | February 21, 2007 at 01:14 PM

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...

Posted by: Steve Woodruff | February 21, 2007 at 04:53 PM