LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Boots on the Ground by Dusk: My Tribute to Pat Tillman, By Mary Tillman with Narda Zacchino
 
July 24, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports
Obama on the Brink
No Easy Out for Obama
 * NEW! * Refighting the Vietnam War

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Truthdig Bazaar
Target Iran

Target Iran

By Scott Ritter
$17.13

more items

 
Reports

Lost in the Lobbying

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Mar 1, 2007

By Ellen Goodman

BOSTON—Hasn’t anyone ever told drug companies to put a warning label on their lobbying? You know, the kind you find on every little prescription bottle? Caution: Too much lobbying may result in an overdose of suspicion. Push too hard and you may experience political acid reflux.

As it is, Merck seems to have rolled a million—or many millions—into a shoestring. And the real losers may be girls and women who need access to the vaccine against cervical cancer.

Let’s return to that magical moment when clinical trials proved that a new vaccine was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing two strains of the HPV virus that causes most cervical cancer. This is the second-leading cancer killer of women in the world. In America, about 9,700 women are diagnosed with it every year and 3,700 die.

In October 2005, Eliav Barr of Merck said exuberantly, “This is it. This is the Holy Grail.” Merck, barely recovering from its Vioxx troubles, was the first of two companies to develop a vaccine. There were hosannas all around. Or, well, almost all around.

The response from the abstinence-only crowd was less enthusiastic. Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said that “it sends the wrong message.” After all, HPV had been almost as useful in the scare tactics of abstinence-only education as had HIV. There were fanciful charges that preventing cancer would encourage promiscuity.

But it was bad PR to be against cancer prevention. So the right-wing groups dropped back from opposing the vaccine itself to opposing mandatory school vaccination.

All of this might have just simmered along, but something happened on the way to gradual acceptance. After FDA approval, the folks at Merck saw Gardasil as their anti-Vioxx, the drug that would help them do well by doing good.

Let us say that the lobbying and advertising that ensued were not heavy-handed by drug company standards. Let us not say much about drug company standards.

Nineteen states introduced legislation to add Gardasil to the list of school vaccines. But the plans blew up when Rick Perry, the governor of Texas and a conservative darling, issued an executive order mandating vaccines. His order allowed parents to opt out on religious or philosophical grounds, the same all-purpose loophole that has worked with other vaccines.

But it turned out that Perry’s former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for Merck. Did that look bad? Whoa, Nellie. Did it look bad that Merck had funded an organization of women legislators backing similar bills? Whoa, Merck.

With a JetBlue-style fiasco on its hands, Merck suspended all flights, uh, lobbying and advertising. But now some very strange bedfellows are going to the mattresses against Gardasil.

There are the abstinence-only folks who believe that cancer prevention sends the “wrong message.” There are the routine opponents of all vaccines and the libertarian opponents of the “nanny state,” not to mention some doctors who thought the vaccine was being rushed and was too expensive. But behind this odd collection are legions who have come to regard Big Pharm with big suspicions.

I hold no brief for Merck. They won their setback the old-fashioned way: They earned it. There’s every reason to assume that Merck wanted its drug approved before the competitor from GlaxoSmithKline comes down the pike. At $400 for a three-shot regimen, there’s a lot of money at stake. 

Nor am I surprised to find that parents are queasy. It’s not easy for any parent to accept that their middle-schooler should get protection from a sexually transmitted disease, even with the risk of cancer. But the parents among these strange bedfellows may remember that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

What’s been lost in the debate about school-mandated vaccines is that this one is extraordinarily safe and effective against a lethal disease. Researchers tell us that most parents ask three questions about vaccines: Is it safe, does it work well and can it prevent something that will seriously harm my child? Gardasil passes those tests. School vaccines also pass the public health test of providing the widest possible coverage.

In the wake of this fiasco, the rush for school mandates has slowed to a crawl. It’s wise to keep one eye on the costs and another on alternative vaccines. It’s savvy to give parents a way to opt out.

But allow me to add one last label on this sorry tale of public relations and public health. This warning is for parents. Caution: Too much suspicion can be bad for your daughters’ health.

Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Greed by Any Other Name

Next item: Last Throes of Cheney's Credibility

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By NETTIE, March 8, 2007 at 11:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

OH, NO, ELLEN...SAY IT AIN’T SO.....NOT YOU TOO.  C’MON.....THIS HAS NOT HAD ENOUGH RESEARCH, WE DO NOT KNOW THE LONG TERM EFFECTS ON WOMEN OR THE CHILDREN THEY MAY BEAR.  THERE ARE ONLY 2 TYPES OF HPV THAT MAY, MAY ,MAAAY....BE ASSOCIATED WITH CERVICAL CANCER. THIS IS JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF EXPERIMENTING ON WOMEN/GIRLS ALA THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL, ANTIDEPRESSANTS, IUD, ETC.  SCARE FOLKS ABOUT THEIR KIDS OR HEALTH AND JUST RUN TO COMPLY WITH ASININE IDEAS.  PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE ABOUT NOTHING BUT THE BOTTOM LINE.  BELIEVE ME, I KNOW AFTER 37 YRS. AS AN R.N.  FOR ONCE, I VOTE WITH THE FUNDIES....THEY DON’T WANT IT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS, BUT IT WORKS IN MY BOOK.  MANDATE IT FOR 11-16 YR. OLD GIRLS?  GET A GRIP, PEOPLE.  LET’S MANDATE IT FOR 11-16 YR. OLD BOYS AND SEE IT FALL BY THE WAYSIDE.....IT IS, AFTER ALL, A 2-WAY STREET WITH STDs.  DO THEY KNOW IF SOME PROSTATE CANCERS MAY BE CAUSED BY CERTAIN STRAINS OF HPV?  IT’S ALREADY PERFECTLY RIDICULOUS THAT WE ARE MANDATING HEPATITIS 2 VACCINES FOR KIDS....RARE, DARLINGS, FOR KIDS.  COULD WE PLEASE LET THEM GROW UP WITH AS FEW VACCINES AS POSSIBLE?  VACCINES THAT MAY CAUSE GRAVE PROBLEMS LATER DOWN THE ROAD.  EVEN THE FLU VACCINE KILLS A FEW EVERY YEAR....SO WHAT, YOU SAY?  WHAT IF IT WERE YOU, YOUR CHILD OR ANOTHER LOVED ONE?  CONSUMERS BE AWARE, IT’S YOUR ONLY DEFENSE.  LEARN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ABUT VACCINES, THEIR HISTORY AND ALTERNATE PROTECTION.  THANK YOU.

Report this

By Bert, March 4, 2007 at 2:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I think you live about as long as you live, and that’s about what it’s going to work out to. There’s preventative medicine, which is what this is advertising itself as, but then again you have to bounce that off the whole ‘we’re medicating your kid for his/her own good’, where they’re feeding the modern equivalent of Soma or whatever to kids that act up. The drug industry is another well-established global enterprise that’ll try to make a buck anyway it can, and deserves some hard-eyed public oversight. Healthscare is another political vehicle, like ‘the poor’ that can and will be used to extort every flippin’ penny out of our economy they think they can get. Nuff said.

Report this

By Mari, March 2, 2007 at 7:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

So, who really funded the study?  The CDC conducted it, but who funded it?  We the People through our tax dollars or some other entity?  Where did the two thousand guinea pigs come from?  Do two thousand women we know absolutely nothing about truly represent millions of American women?  How can we know? And why pass legislation or issue executive orders any parent can simply opt out of?  What is the point?  So, who’s going to pay for the poor people that cannot afford four hundred dollars?  Tax money?  And to whom shall this tax money go?  Merck? 

Looks like a smoke screen to me.  Politicians doing essentially nothing on behalf of their employers--their constituents--while protecting and enriching a major corporation willing to fund their upcoming campaigns.  Elections are right around the corner, aren’t they?  Probably see plenty more smoke screen issues popping up between now and November 2008.

Report this

By Smapdi, March 2, 2007 at 1:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=R etrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16404 738
HPV has a proven causal relationship to cervical cancer.

Report this

By when some of the people who oppose, March 1, 2007 at 1:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

this vaccine lose a woman they care about to cerviacal cancer, i wonder: will they change their minds? or will they decide their loved one deserved to die so horribly because she must’ve been secretly promiscuous?

Report this

By Kellina, March 1, 2007 at 6:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

My complaint is not based on religious grounds. It’s based on scientific grounds. No one has proved that cancer is caused by a virus. Top virologists have given up on that notion.

Show me the paper that proves that HPV causes cervical cancer. Earlier we were told that herpes causes cervical cancer.

Pulease! Is the proof in Merck’s secret files? There is indeed a lot of money to be made, and no reason to trust the maker. Let’s see Koch’s postulates fulfilled first.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.