New York Times 5 Page Article on fast rise of Gardasil

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

The Evidence Gap: Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Fast Rise

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: August 19, 2008

In two years, cervical cancer has gone from obscure killer confined mostly to poor nations to the West’s disease of the moment.

...The lightning-fast transition from newly minted vaccine to must-have injection in the United States and Europe represents a triumph of what the manufacturers call education and their critics call marketing. The vaccines, which offer some protection against infection from sexually transmitted viruses, are far more expensive than earlier vaccines against other diseases — Gardasil’s list price is $360 for the three-dose series, and the total cost is typically $400 to nearly $1,000 with markup and office visits (and often only partially covered by health insurance).

...
...And why the sudden alarm in developed countries about cervical cancer, some experts ask. A major killer in the developing world, particularly Africa, where the vaccines are too expensive for use, cervical cancer is classified as very rare in the West because it is almost always preventable through regular Pap smears, which detect precancerous cells early enough for effective treatment. Indeed, because the vaccines prevent only 70 percent of cervical cancers, Pap smear screening must continue anyway.

“Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women’s group, medical society, politicians, and went directly to the people — it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now,” said Dr. Diane Harper, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. Dr. Harper was a principal investigator on the clinical trials of both Gardasil and Cervarix, and she spent 2006-7 on sabbatical at the World Health Organization developing plans for cervical cancer vaccine programs around the world.

“Because Merck was so aggressive, it went too fast,” Dr. Harper said. “I would have liked to see it go much slower.”

But with their high price, the vaccines are straining national and state health budgets as well as family pocketbooks. These were the first vaccines approved for universal use in any age group that clearly cost the health system money rather than saved it, in contrast to less expensive shots, against measles and tetanus, for example, that pay for themselves by preventing costly diseases.

Remember the next paragraph when your doctor or nurse recommends this vaccine:

Co-opting Doctors and Nurses

Girls and their families are by no means the only marketing target.

In 2006, hundreds of doctors and nurses were signed up as unofficial spokesmen for Gardasil, trained by Merck, provided with a multimedia presentation and paid $4,500 for each 50-minute talk, delivered over Merck-sponsored meals. Many were paid for attending Merck “advisory board” meetings to discuss the shots.

[notadmblnd]

1. thanks for posting this here. I was just reading it in GD

I was also surprised to see Governor Kaine's connection to it.

[mzmolly]

2. This is perhaps the first vaccine that anyone has dared to question

in a mass, mainstream format. I am glad to finally see a healthy, open debate.

Off to finish the article. Thanks for posting :hi:

[chicagomd]

3. Please read the article before posting.

The vaccine is not being questioned, the rate and the manner in which is was marketed is being very appropriately investigated.

From the article:
"Even critics of the marketing efforts recognize the benefits of the vaccines."

And please at least make a small attempt cut the language like "dare to question". There is not some evil overlord here, or anywhere else for that matter, suppressing dissent or debate.

Talk about a persecution complex...

[mzmolly]

5. LOL. Parse words

if it serves you.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. The New York Times has this filed under "The Evidence Gap" for a reason.

First of all: It is inappropriate to dictate to others here when and if they can post or not.

The NY Times 5 Page article is hardly an endorsement for Gardasil.

It is a report on the agreesive markeing and lobbying scheme put forth by a company battling
huge payouts to victims of its recent blunder, Vioxx.

The article says that Gardasil:

- it "may" help prevent some strains of HPV.

- it might require a booster shot but that is not known

- it is not cost effective

- the fast rise of Gardasil was due to Merck's marketing and lobbying plan.

- Merck created a false sense of emergency.

- that there is no epidemic.

If a 12-year-old is vaccinated, will she still be protected in college, when her risk of infection is higher? Or will a booster vaccine be necessary?

Some experts are concerned about possible side effects that become apparent only after a vaccine has been more widely tested over longer periods.

...And why the sudden alarm in developed countries about cervical cancer, some experts ask. A major killer in the developing world, particularly Africa, where the vaccines are too expensive for use, cervical cancer is classified as very rare in the West because it is almost always preventable through regular Pap smears, which detect precancerous cells early enough for effective treatment. Indeed, because the vaccines prevent only 70 percent of cervical cancers, Pap smear screening must continue anyway.

....These were the first vaccines approved for universal use in any age group that clearly cost the health system money rather than saved it,

...“This kind of money could be better used to solve so many other problems in women’s health,” said Dr. Lippman at McGill. “Some of our provinces are running out of money to provide primary care. I’m not against vaccines, but in Canada and the U.S., women are not dying in the streets of cervical cancer.”

[mzmolly]

7. Thanks. Not to mention my comment was based on the fact that the NYT

has invited open debate. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

37. ad hom. no provocation. out of bounds.

[tavalon]

21. I was going to argue with you until I read your full statement

As the mother of an autistic boy and a nurse who was formerly gung ho about vaccines, I have done the research on vaccines and have a far more nuanced view about them nowadays. When I saw the Gardisil media blitz, I did research and came up with exactly this frame of reference. It's potentially a very useful vaccine for the areas in which cervical cancer is epidemic, and it can be a useful adjunct here in America, though condoms and pap smears are still very necessary, in fact, far more necessary than a $360.00 series of shots that only cover a few of the strains and were rushed to stardom before time has revealed the best way to safely utilize this vaccine. I find it interesting that the company pushing this vaccine here in the states, has little interest in providing it subsidized to the third world nations who need it (they ARE willing to let the Gates foundation buy it outright to provide it to third world women). I think that is rather telling.

To give you an idea of how nuanced my view is about vaccines, my own son hasn't had a single vaccine since he was 3.5 but every few years, I get titers from him on all the biggies to make sure he is still immune. This year, we are going to check his tetanus titer and if it isn't up to snuff, he will be getting a thimerosal free Td or Tdap. I'm not going to check his measles titer yet as the numbers we get back on that one always scare his healthcare providers. See, it turns out that his gut is colonized by the genetically modified measles and consequently (I wish that were the only consequence!) his titers are through the roof. I've gotten used to the "sticker shock" but we moved to Washington state two years ago and I don't want to go through the freak out with his new doctor until I've really broken him in. I doubt my son will ever get another measles vaccine, even though he didn't finish his original series. I refused to ever let him get the chicken pox vaccine and lo and behold, two years ago, his titer for chickenpox came back positive, so somewhere down the road, he got chickenpox, though his hyperreactive immune system never even gave us a clue that he had it. I will utilize the vaccines on a need basis for him from here on out. For instance, while Hep B is a very consequence laden disease, it's also very unusual here in the US, though you wouldn't know it by the way the vaccine has been marketed and the way parents are pushed to give it to their newborns. You would think that newborn hepatitis B is epidemic. It's not. But if a pregnant woman has Hepatitis B, I would be the first to push and push hard for her baby to get the vaccine at birth (and immune globulin, to boot) but for most, it is just a money maker for the drug companies.

I'm really sad and ashamed that I never questioned the vaccine protocols until the potential danger became actual damage in my own family. My son, while incredibly loved by his family, will never have a normal life and I will never have a comfortable, unquestioning belief in medical "science" ever again. Medicine has been co-opted by the pharmaceutical companies in a big way and they don't really have patient's best interests at heart though it might look like it from the outside. They really just have their financial interests at heart. That they have done some good in the process is purely happenstance.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. (((((( ))))))) well said and thoughtful

I am sorry that you are going through this and your son is lucky to have such
a caring and smart parent who does everything possible for him.

[tavalon]

31. I'm actually his stepmom, though I've been with him now almost 8 years and love him fiercely

When I first got together with his parents (yes, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am poly), his mom told me, tearfully, that she caused his autism by allowing him to have his vaccines. I decided to do the research so I could reassure her that vaccines are perfectly safe and she didn't cause it. So, I walked into my research with a pro-vaccine bias. Even so, the evidence did not support my hypothesis. I had a crisis of faith. I hadn't realized how much of "medical science" is based on belief and hearsay. I ultimately stayed in nursing but am now much more critical in my thinking.

Little guy is very lucky (except for that autism thing) because he has three parents who adore him and are committed to doing the best by him. I play the role of his medical advocate and his own private nurse because that's what I do best but I couldn't have done half of what we've done for him without his other parents' help.

[mzmolly]

32. You sound like a wonderful, thoughtful parent.

Bravo to you on your careful approach to caring for your step-son.

[trotsky]

4. I don't think you'll find anyone on this forum who thinks Merck...

or ANY pharmaceutical always behaves perfectly and in consumers' best interests. That would be a strawman of your own creation.

However, the very real fact of the matter is that a lot of the anti-Gardasil rhetoric is driven by prudish right-wingers who think that giving a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus is the same as telling girls to have sex.

What it comes down to is, what price do you put on women's health and any given woman's life? It is not surprising at all that some experts disagree. The media, of course, in its FAUX News-like "fair and balanced" manner decides that the few who have questions are equal to the many who view this vaccine as a wonderful breakthrough for womens' health.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. You have confused your opinion with facts.

Your statement here:

"However, the very real fact of the matter is that a lot of the anti-Gardasil rhetoric is driven by prudish right-wingers who think that giving a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus is the same as telling girls to have sex."

THAT is your opinion.

It is a way of beating people over the head for disagreeing with you.

Merck has put another possibly dangerous drug/vaccine out on the market in order to recoup its Gardasil losses.

People/parents are concerned that Gardasil is making otherwise health girls sick and in some cases -dead.

People don't want to risk the health of their daughters or sons for a vaccine that has a good chance of making their child sick and has not been proven to meet its hype.

[trotsky]

9. No, sorry, that's a fact.

The right-wing IS driving A LOT of the anti-Gardasil noise. The Eagle Forum (Schlafly) and Focus on the Family (Dobson) have been two of the loudest groups in opposition to it. Check out the comments section on most Gardasil news articles.

I state a fact. Sorry you don't like to hear it.

It is a way of beating people over the head for disagreeing with you.

Coming from you, that's hilarious.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. Actually if you go to the other forums, they credit the right wingers with supporting big pharma

so visit the outerworld when you get through trying to harass people in this forum.

[tavalon]

25. I agree with you on that point

I find them strange bedfellows and I don't like the fleas they leave. As well, I think it muddies the debate to have such partisan people arguing against this vaccine. As a pro-choice, pro-sex education nurse, I think I have far more credibility than they have and yet, here we are, standing on the same stage, saying the same things. Their stance is based on their religious "values" and mine is based on research and healthy skepticism. Very odd bedfellows, indeed.

[Hannah Bell]

10. the very real fact of the matter is that a lot of the anti-Gardasil rhetoric is driven by prudish

right-wingers who think that giving a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus is the same as telling girls to have sex."


so the obvious way of countering their efforts is to call them names. lol.

if this vaccine's necessity/efficacy/cost-effectiveness was such an open & shut case, there wouldn't be so much need for the ad hom.

& stop already with the "concern for women's health." i'm a woman, & i see much more pressing needs than this boondoggle.

[trotsky]

13. I'm sorry you're confused.

About a few things, most notably what the definition of "name-calling" is.

I am not calling ANYONE here a right-winger. I thought that was pretty clear. I am noting that right-wing groups are pushing a lot of the anti-Gardasil rhetoric. This is not name-calling, this is stating a fact. There's no ad hom, there's no name-calling.

But perhaps you would be able to leap to my defense when people call me a shill, or imply that I'm on Merck's payroll? If you abhor name-calling so much, it's the very least you could do.

stop already with the "concern for women's health." i'm a woman, & i see much more pressing needs than this boondoggle.

And that's the beauty of having an opinion. Others are allowed to disagree with you, aren't they?

[Hannah Bell]

18. i just joined this debate for the first time a few days ago, i've NEVER

said or implied you were on merck's payroll myself.

Here's what i've observed: someone posts something that casts doubt on the benefits of gardasil.

Several people jump in with snark & worse.

The op responds in kind.

From what i've seen, i think the solution would be to quit the snark & debate the facts. I doubt you'd get snark if you didn't dish it out.

yes, you're allowed to have an opinion. but "concern for women's health" is emotional smoke, to hide the facts.

[trotsky]

34. Didn't accuse you of doing so.

Are you deliberately twisting my words or what?

Here's how the scenario has actually been playing out recently:

Someone posts inaccurate facts, or an incorrect interpretation of the facts, to condemn Gardasil. (Misuse of VAERS database, misunderstanding of chemicals and dosage, etc.)
People respond to correct the information, sometimes with forceful assertion, despite that person making the same mistakes OVER and OVER and OVER, even having been corrected before.
The op responds wildly, tells people to "fuck off", gets posts deleted, calls them shills, etc.

I realize that you're a saint in all this. :eyes: But if such behavior really perturbs you, you should be condemning it from BOTH sides. But I just don't see that happening.

And even here, you misinterpreted what I said, blasted me for it, backed off, but never apologized for the erroneous accusation in the first place. Let he who is without sin, as they say.

[Hannah Bell]

36. silly. a couple of posts down, you misinterpret someone else.

i'm wise.

[trotsky]

51. "Neener, neener, you did it first."

Is that what passes for a discussion with you?

You may think you're wise but you've made unfounded accusations and have demonstrated a double standard. Those don't equal "wise" in my book.

[tavalon]

22. I hate to be the one to tell you this

but I've participated in enough of these discussions to assure you that, for many here, vaccines are a blind spot. Many have defended them as though they are on _____________'s payroll. I left that blank because you could fill in Merck, Smithkline Beechem or a dozen other companies.

As a former blindy, I can tell you it takes a mighty big clue by four to shake the faithful's point of view.

[trotsky]

33. Thanks for continuing the animosity!

Despite all the protests of vaccination defenders, you STILL insinuate that we're on a pharmaceutical's payroll.

Nicely done!

[Liberal Veteran]

35. Yeah, my mercenary involvement in this is much more evil than working for the pharma cos.

See...I get paid to paid by lawyers who disseminate information to anti-pharma groups to use them as patsies to start a whisper campaign about the dangers of new drugs so they will go out and spread the word and make it more likely we can start a class-action lawsuit and rake in some more cash.

This scheme is so sweet, and the suckers who fall for our stuff are so easy to dupe and they spread our disinformation for free.

Then, we sue the pharma co's, rake in big bucks, and wait until the next advance in medicine to skim our next jackpot off of.

It's like a golden goose that lives forever!

:sarcasm:

[Hannah Bell]

40. The poster didn't say anyone was working for anyone.

She said some folks defend vaccines AS IF they were.

your response: snark.

[Hannah Bell]

39. fact is, you threw the initial punch on this thread: your response to

the op was the opposition is driven by prudes who don't like girls having sex.

no substantive response, just a straw man.

but when this poster says pro-vaccine folks defend their position AS IF they were on the payroll (general hypothetical remark), you label it "animosity".

You're driving the discussion into unprofitable channels.

[trotsky]

52. Let me try and explain the difference to you.

tavalon was specifically referring to the defense of vaccines HERE.

My comment referred to the anti-Gardasil movement OUTSIDE OF HERE.

Just a little different, wouldn't you say?

[tavalon]

50. Your reading comprehension isn't the greatest

but thanks for pushing this topic back to the top! I'll now return the favor.

[trotsky]

53. See post #52. n/t

[tavalon]

24. That is part of the push, I'll admit, but not with me

I'm a pro-sex education when they are young person. I know that I and most of my friends were having unprotected sex early and often in high school and unlike most of my friends, time hasn't drawn a veil across MY memory! I don't think kids are any more cautious than we were and it's a developmental fact that teenagers believe themselves immortal when engaging in risky sexual behavior.

I put a high value on women, being one myself, but it is clear to me that this media blitz is about scaring woman, not protecting them. A six dollar box of condoms (especially the female condom) and a yearly pap smear are far more effective at preventing and detecting cervical cancer but less profitable to the pharmaceutical companies so the pharmaceutical companies are muddying things to get their ends met. I worry that women will believe that this vaccine will free them up to have unprotected sex and to not worry about having pap smears as often if they've had the vaccine. As well, I have doubts about the long term efficacy and safety of this vaccine. I certainly hope it is both, but WE DON'T KNOW! That's the key thing, it has been mass marketed well before we have enough information.

[Hannah Bell]

38. op is straight from the nyt, posted without comment. no religious angle at all.

response introduces "prudish right-wingers" & a hypothetical "few" who are hurting women by "putting a price on their lives".

[trotsky]

54. You really haven't looked into the anti-Gardasil movement much, have you?

Hint: Google Gardasil, Eagle Forum, Schlafly, etc.

You YOURSELF had to use JudicialWatch as a source! :rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

58. i repeat: the OP was straight from the NYT, posted without comment.

I linked a Merck document stored at JW, found by googling.

I note your use of personal ridicule & disregard for civility.

[trotsky]

59. Thanks for the update!

You take care now.

[Hannah Bell]

11. I guess the folks at the NYT can be added to the list of anti-sex, anti-science,

right-wing zealots - & the medical personnel the article quotes. lol.

a mainstream article comes out making all the points the "nuts" have been making in these threads.

call the nyt & ask why they've been hijacked by the fundies!

[cosmik debris]

12. Do you realize that your obsession with Gardasil is making you look

like a fanatic of some sort?

Seriously, you seem to be taking this to extremes.

Your crusade is not going to change any minds here.

You have already established your position. Now you are just being an !@#$%^&*(*&^%$#@!.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. do you realize that in all other forums, people are skeptical of Gardasil and and Merck?

and in fact in ALL other forums skepticism is common, especially since the
FDA has been diminished by the Bush administration?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. Do you realize that your harrassing me will only make me more determined to post news articles here?

and that you cannot run me off with any sort of fucktardary?

[cosmik debris]

17. Your tantrum is duly noted. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

19. Your harrassing behavior is obvious. I will post news and reports here as they are available

I will be back any time there are news articles, whether it is a 5 page article
in the New York Times or a single page in a medical journal.

[cosmik debris]

20. You should at least consider

that obsession is unhealthy behavior.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. why are you obsessed with what I do?

it seems so fucktarded to stalk me from thread to thread.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

43. another personal attack. The poster pasted an article from the NYT,

& your first response is to label her obsessive, then continue to name-call when she tells you to lay off.

[tavalon]

28. And thank you for that!

Because my child needs so much, I don't really have the energy or time to post the articles. I am so glad you have the persistence.

[Hannah Bell]

42. Now you label the poster a tantrum-thrower. But you were the one

who started the personal attack, completely unprovoked, in response to an article from a credible source, posted without comment.

Is it possible to post an article without being personally attacked?

[tavalon]

27. Unfortunately, you are right

Vaccines are a big blind spot in consumers minds. They certainly were in this nurses mind until I was forced by my personal circumstances, to look at them. The funny thing is, when I researched the different vaccines, what I finally came up with after two years of immersive research was that vaccines are neither all bad nor all good. They are things that, while very useful, cannot nor should be packaged for mass consumption. The vaccine schedule, far more than the vaccines themselves, is the dangerous thing. Vaccines are not one size fits all but in our industrialized medical model, that is exactly what has been forced upon us. Even crazier, the vaccine schedule has been created, not by the medical profession, but by the pharmaceutical companies. So the people who stand to make the most profit are the ones pushing more vaccines at earlier ages. Rather interesting, isn't it?

Individualized vaccine plans would take so much of the danger away, but healthcare providers do not have the time to do that and most consumers aren't doing the research and even if they do, they come up against a dogmatic system that tries to force them into a cookie cutter mold and pushes them to take all or nothing. Many parents who are refusing all vaccines for their children are doing it because that is the only option they see - you give them all, on a set schedule or your children won't be allowed to attend school or you get a blanket exemption that will be taken away if you give your child any vaccine. The last time I got titers on my child, the doctor (not his usual doctor) asked why I wanted them since I would not be vaccinating. I explained that if the titers were too low, I would be utilizing certain vaccines. He said that by doing that, I would be nullifying the exemption I had. My husband chuckled because he knows that mama bear will do it exactly as she feels is safe and no one, NO ONE, will decide for me what will be done for and to my child. I explained this gently, but in no uncertain terms to the physician who then ordered the titers.

[Hannah Bell]

41. OP is taken straight from the NYT without comment.

Your response to no provocation whatsoever?

Name-calling & personal attack: "fanatic," "extremes" "crusade" "expletive"

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

44. So, I went through every comment on this thread to determine why these threads turn into flame-fests

This was a good test because the OP was an article from the NYT (credible source) detailing some concerns re gardasil, & it was posted WITHOUT COMMENT by the poster - no "nyah nyah" or anything which might be taken as provocative.

Two of the usual posters commented on it.

One's initial post was: "prudes" are driving an anti-vaccine campaign. No substantive comment, just the apparent attempt to smear the article by association with "prudes".

The other's initial post was: "You're obsessive." again, no substantive response to the article, just personal attack (which continued).


It's pretty obvious to me why these threads turn into flame fests.


On edit: oh, yeah, there was a third poster i haven't seen before who accused the original poster of "persecution complex". again, in response to a cut-&-paste from the NYT, posted without comment.


The flames are driven by the folks who apparently don't know how to discuss something on the facts, rather than by attacking the other discussants personally.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. and if you check other similar OPs, you will see stalking by those same people

and stalking is supposed to be a violation of DU rules.

It happens alot here in this forum.

I am not sure I've seen one as bad, and I was a daily poster in the GDP forum,
posting the Obama Daily News every day for several months, until Obama was the
presumptive nominee.

[mhatrw]

47. It's worse than the 9/11 forum.

I don't know about the Gundgeon or the I/P forum, but this is the worst one I've ever been to.

[Hannah Bell]

48. I think there's a rules violation:

"3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum."


I also think it might be better to stick to the facts, & not be dissuaded by snark, except in the case where there's blatant personal attack (which I see a couple of times in this thread). It's hard not to give in to the urge to snap back, but I think it's more successful (tactically) to note the violation of civility calmly & move on, keeping to the facts.

There's a technique some people use in debate which is to make denigrating remarks in a nuanced way, such that they can't be called on it easily - there's room for doubt. They entangle you in fruitless debate & snark, & you wind up looking like the bad guy.

The purpose is to voice/discuss concerns about this vaccine, & it's quite legitimate to do so, so don't let folks shut down the discussion.

[mhatrw]

46. What a revelation!

For some strange reason, certain flamefests seem to be welcomed or even encouraged, while others get locked. What could the difference be?

[HamdenRice]

49. The usual suspects, the usual modus operandi

Thanks for calmly and objectively pointing out the effect certain posters have on discussions across these boards.

[trotsky]

55. And yet certain OTHER posters end up getting their posts deleted.

I wonder why that is?

[HamdenRice]

56. You mean like

those who post jerkoff smilies as their best and only attempt at reason, and get them all deleted? If so, I agree.

Everyone, but everyone, knows and sees through your m.o. It's tiresome.

[trotsky]

57. You know quite well what I'm referring to.

Don't make me embarrass you by posting links.