Merck Mandating Vaccine

F

Fembot2

Cathlete
Just wondering if anyone has an opinion of Merck lobbying across the country to mandate that all girls entering the 6th grade have the Gardsil vaccine. If they get a bill passed, they will generate over 1 billion in sales per year. I understand its potential for stopping cervical cancer, but forcing a parent to give this to their child is a bit much. No one forced the chicken pox vaccine on us, we were given an option. How about waiting until the child is 18 and letting them decide for themselves if they want to have it.

I'm a bit overcautious of vaccines due to my son's disorder and the controversy surrounding Thermisil in vaccines during the time he was immunized. How do we know this vaccine isn't going to cause some birth defects later in life for these girls? Geez, it makes me angry when I see how much these companies are making off of this vaccine, all the while hiding behind there claims of wanting to make the world a better place. How about offering the vaccine for free (estimated cost for the vaccine per person is $360) to women who can't afford health insurance.

Okay, rant over. Thanks for letting me vent!
 
I hesitate in commenting on Merck lobbying for this vaccine to be mandated because I HATE pharmaceutical companies. While I believe that a lot of drugs have done wonders, I also believe most of them are prescribed by doctors who are getting big benefits from dealing with the drug reps.

That being said, the chicken pox vaccine is now mandated for children entering NYC schools. The law is about 5 years old now. I haven't seen a case of chicken pox in years (I'm a school nurse).

I often wonder, as having had the chicken pox as a child and most of us probably did, does the risk of taking the vaccine outweigh the risk of actually getting the disease? No one I ever heard of suffered as a result of the disease but I'm sure there were a few as I'm sure there were a few that suffered as a result of the vaccine.

I'm not sure I made any sense here. So, although cervical cancer is very curable (IF CAUGHT EARLY), I guess we should do everything in our power to prevent any cancer. But I understand your question - at what cost?

Nancy
 
"but forcing a parent to give this to their child is a bit much."

They already do that all the time, there are a plethora of Vax required before you enter school. How about targeting infants for Hep B (sexually and needle transmitted) because it is easy to get the series in when they are in for all those well check ups as babies.
 
I'm in the medical field and wanted to chime in. I think mandating Gardisil isnt a good idea either. As far as chicken pox goes, there was a little girl in the office yesterday with chicken pox and last year there was a death from chicken pox so I can see the vaccine being beneficial. With respect to Hep B and infants, the American Academy of Pediatrics already recommends having all infants immunized before leaving the nursery. I think the most important thing is making informed decisions and gathering your information from reputable sources. I'll speak for my small group of friends in the medical profession....most doctors I know gain nothing financially from having immunizations mandated. In fact, when asking the physicians I know, most pharmaceutical companies rank right up there with insurance companies as being a thorn in their side.
 
I think it is a bit much madating the vaccine, since it is new and we don't know the long term affects.

I do wish the vaccine was around 10 years ago though. I was fortunate enough to have caught the cancerous cells early and was able to have a LEEP procedure done and so far all is well with me. What about the women/girls who do not go in for annual pap tests? I don't know much about HPV (which causes cervical cancer) but if a child happens to get this when they are say 11, isn't it normal procedure not to start pap tests until 16 or so? That gives 4+ years that the cervical cancer goes undetected. So what I am saying is that no, I don't think that it should be mandatory at this point, but I do think that it is wonderful that such a vaccine does exist.
 
On a different note, I plan on getting my two DD's vaccinated when they're 11. I don't care whether it's mandated or not. I also don't buy into the argument that this vaccine may encourage children to become sexually promiscious at a younger age. I'm not living in the dark ages and even though I plan on having "the talk" when they're old enough to understand sex, I also know that kids are going to do things behind my back and I can't keep my eyes on them 24/7. I want them protected against a cancer that is caused by a sexually transmitted virus.
 
Why wouldn't you(the
>public) want to do that?
>
>Catherine

It is a great idea, but I don't want the government telling me what I have to do with my (or my children's) body/ies. It should totally be up to the parents, NOT the government. Too much Big Brother, IMO.

Carol
 
Yeah, it's the mandating part that scares me too. That is waaay too controlling. The attitude seems to be we are too stupid to take care of ourselves, so they have to do it for us.

I don't trust the companies that make the vaccines, I don't think they really have a clue how safe they are. I have heard way too many horrible stories about post-vax reactions/effects.

The huge rise in neurological disorders, particularly in children? Better diagnosis, some of them, yes. But does not account for all of the huge increase. I think they need to better understand all of this before they run around jabbing people even more. Somewhere I read that THE MOST profitable thing a drug company can do is invent a vaccine for something...ANYTHING...and have the government mandate or at least recommend it. It is their dream come true. The temptation is too strong not to whitewash any ill effects and pass it off as safe.
 
Dh and I haven't decided if we will vaccinate our girls with the Gardsil vaccine. They have had all the other vaccines. If it is mandated and we decided against it, we will use the religious exemption since it would be a violation of our religious convictions to immunize against our children's possible future immorality. In PA, you can opt out on any or all vaccinations due to religious reasons without being subject to explanation or approval. I'm not sure about other states.

Now, I don't believe getting this vaccine will prevent girls from engaging in premarital sex. A consideration we would have is the possibility that our children might be sexually assaulted.

I would think that if this vaccine were mandated, the government would have to provide it for those who cannot afford it through the Health Department.
 
>I often wonder, as having had the chicken pox as a child and
>most of us probably did, does the risk of taking the vaccine
>outweigh the risk of actually getting the disease? No one I
>ever heard of suffered as a result of the disease but I'm sure
>there were a few as I'm sure there were a few that suffered as
>a result of the vaccine.

I agree with your basic point about chicken pox as in no child that I know of ever suffered terribly from it. I think the thinking with the chicken pox vaccine nowadays is that chicken pox can be very dangerous if you get it as an adult--even deadly if you are a senior. Since you can't ensure that every child will get chicken pox and therefore be rendered immune it is probably better to vaccinate so that they don't run the risks of getting the disease as an adult.
 
>>
>I don't trust the companies that make the vaccines, I don't
>think they really have a clue how safe they are. I have heard
>way too many horrible stories about post-vax
>reactions/effects.
>
>The huge rise in neurological disorders, particularly in
>children? Better diagnosis, some of them, yes. But does not
>account for all of the huge increase. I think they need to
>better understand all of this before they run around jabbing
>people even more. Somewhere I read that THE MOST profitable
>thing a drug company can do is invent a vaccine for
>something...ANYTHING...and have the government mandate or at
>least recommend it. It is their dream come true. The
>temptation is too strong not to whitewash any ill effects and
>pass it off as safe.

I have to respectfully disagree. These companies do MAJOR studies and research in order to get FDA approval. And, again, the FDA is who gives approval. They have to balance the need for care with the need for long-term studies. It would be great if everything had 20 years of research behind it but that isn't realistic when there are medical needs now. These study DO indicate the risks but in order to get FDA approval the benefits must SIGNIFICANTLY outweigh the risks.

Also, a vaccine is NOT NECESSARILY the most profitable thing a drug company can make. The costs of production, etc. are HUGE for vaccines. So while a government mandate may ensure sales they don't necessarily ensure the biggest profit.
 
First of all, I think this vaccine is too new to really know if it's worth anything. Second of all, this doesn't prevent cervical cancer. It only *MAY* protect you against *SOME* viruses that *MAY* cause cervical cancer. Even the commercial can't make better claims than that. The least we deserve is a vaccine that guarantees protection against something if it's going to be mandatory.

Besides all that, though, I think we should be given a choice about these things. I am also one of those that distrusts pharmaceutical companies and the doctors who are benefited greatly by prescribing their drugs. Once again, they've done some good, but it's 99.99999999% about the money, not our well-being.
 
This vaccine is "new" to the public, but it has been in clinical trials for years and years and years. I happen to know one of the Doctors who ran clinical trials for this and her trials went on for a long, long time with many, many, many women.
 
I'll chime in here...

I am a Women's Health Care NP and think this vaccine is promising. A vaccine that may prevent 70% of cervical cancer and 90% of genital warts. Wow!! With that said, I simply do not understand mandating this vaccine. This sums up my opinon on mandatory vaccination against genital HPV, especially as a mother:

"Because vaccine requirements were established to protect students against infectious diseases that are acquired in schools through casual contact (sneezing, touching).... Genital HPV is not transmitted through casual contact in schools."http://www.ashastd.org/pdfs/FAQ_HPV_Vaccine0506.pdf

I support access to vountary vaccination, but mandatory I oppose based on what we know about genital HPV infection.

I am preparing a lecture for nursing students and found this:

"But some medical experts say lawmakers are moving too fast in their efforts to vaccinate all school-age girls. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for instance, is urging a go-slow approach, with an initial focus on raising public awareness of HPV and more monitoring of the safety of the vaccine, which had minimal side effects in clinical trials but hasn't been observed in larger-scale rollouts."http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/hea...0,166914.story
 
I actually know one of the scientists in Merck's research laboratories who worked on this vaccine. Based on what he told me, the profit margin for this is not huge at all, yet the development costs were very expensive. But I agree that mandating a vaccine, particularly for a disease that doesn't have a high mortality rate, is a but much. And, I think HPV can be avoided with safe sex - that's what they should be preaching.

But I have to defend the pharmaceutical companies. Though I agree that pharmaceutical marketing tactics have gotten a little out of control - they're not 100% evil. And my physcian friends all tell me that the drug rep perks have slowed way down because of ethical complaints and smaller marketing budgets. But I'm still suspicious because several of my doctors seem to push certain drugs that I don't necessarily agree with. (E.g synthetic vs. natural thyroid replacement hormone).

I'd also like to point out that Merck's corporate philanthropy department is very generous. I work for a nonprofit (www.mectizan.org) that distributes an antiparasitic drug that Merck developed about 30 years ago. The drug is extremely expensive to manufacture - it's estimated at $4.50 per dose. When Merck realized that the people who need the drug are the ones who can least afford it, they decided to manufacture it anyway and just donate it. It was the first drug donation program for mass treatment of its kind, now 50 million people a year in Africa and Latin America receive the drug free of charge to fight river blindness, a blinding parasitic disease. The program has been so successful that the disease is almost eliminated in Latin America.

Now other companies are modeling programs after ours to combat other parasitic and tropical diseases such as sleeping sickness, leprosy, elephantiasis, trachoma (a blinding disease), schistosomiasis (diarrheal disease), intestinal worms etc.

I was in Geneva week before last meeting with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the heads of corporate philanthropy for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson. It was heartwarming to hear about how "big pharma" is actually interested in and committed to improving human health in developing countries. These people, who are economic competitors, spent 2 days discussing their philanthropic projects and how they can work with WHO and each other to make them more effective and efficient. And the weird thing is, as much criticism as drug companies get - none of them really promote their philanthropic projects to the general public. I think placing ads to tell the world that they're relieving suffering in developing countries - for free - would be a lot more effective than their other drug marketing schemes.

Ok, sorry this got way too long. Just thought I'd show the other side of the pharmaceutical industry.
 
I totally agree with you, Autumn. I think it should be an individual choice and not a forced effort. I think our girls should have a say in their health care (but I don't think 11 years old is mature enough to make that choice) and if at 16 or 17, if they want to have it, then fine. If I had more faith in the pharmaceutical companies, I might have a different outlook on this, but I have seen first hand how they just cover up things when things don't look rosy for some of the side effects. Just recently I attended a seminar and there was a side topic about Elly Lilly (SP?) and the doctor giving the seminar said one of her colleges was hired by Elly Lilly to research Thermisal and he was told that what they wanted in the end report was "no findings". This type of thing goes on all the time. Just like we were told a few years ago when the chicken pox vaccine came out in the beginning that it was totally safe and a one time shot. Now they find that you can still get the virus (all three of my neighbors son's came down with it AFTER the vaccine) and now you also need a booster later. I think it's too early in this vaccines existence to make it mandatory. Also, pregnancy is totally preventable, but I will not be putting my 11 year old on the pill. Instead I will give her all the education she needs PRIOR to becoming sexually active (yes, we're starting these talks now) and all the things she is risking by doing so. I guess in the end what bugs me is being told I don't have a choice and someone is going to benefit BIG TIME financially from it, 1 billion per year to be exact.
 
<<I think it should be an individual choice and not a forced effort. I think our girls should have a say in their health care (but I don't think 11 years old is mature enough to make that choice) and if at 16 or 17, if they want to have it, then fine.>>

Exactly. I don't live in a bubble and am well aware of the risk of genital HPV. The virus is spread via skin-to-skin contact (in the right area). Even if my DD remains chaste, what are the chances my DD will marry a man with the same history? I do want her safe but agree this should be a private decision. There are answers regarding safety and effetiveness I will consider before consenting to my DD receiving the vaccine. The FDA doesn't even know if boosters will be needed.

ETA: that my opinon may change as evidence becomes available.:)
 
I think many times parents are a little too hopeful that their children will save sex for marriage. That goes against statistics when only 5% of people do (and have since the 1950s).

HPV is not only spread by sexual contact. It doesn't die as soon as it hits a surface. (toilet seats) It can also be spread from mother to child. Some parents may not realize they have it (PAP smears don't check for HPV...they check for abnormal cervical cells) and pass it on to their children.

While I am not sure it should be nationally mandated, I do believe that it is in the interest of schools to mandate it as another vaccine to have received before entering.

I just don't understand why a parent would intentionally deny their child of something that could save a lot of heartache in the future. The procedures required after finding abnormal cervical cells are tedious and painful. A shot is much better.

Also, doctors don't get "big bucks" from pharmaceutical companies. Even if a doctor wanted to, there are regulations against that (not so 10 years ago). I will second what was said about pharm companies being a thorn in a doc's side. They are a necessary evil.

Becky McGilligan
2nd year medical student
 
<<While I am not sure it should be nationally mandated, I do believe that it is in the interest of schools to mandate it as another vaccine to have received before entering.>>

It is my understanding this will be decided at the state level.

<<It doesn't die as soon as it hits a surface. (toilet seats)>>

There is much to be learned about the transmission. Everything I have read reports that non-sexual transmission is rare and transmission via toilet seats is highly unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top