Who's Afraid of Gardasil? (The Nation)

Who's Afraid of Gardasil?
Karen Houppert


The HPV vaccine story has gotten all tangled up.

As recently as June 8, 2006, public health advocates, progressives and many parents were celebrating a huge victory: The Food and Drug Administration had approved Merck's new vaccine Gardasil, a shot series that would help protect girls from cervical cancer and genital warts. To their continuing delight, the Centers for Disease Control's immunization committee recommended less than a month later that the shots immediately be given to all females between the ages of 9 and 26. The committee acted on persuasive data indicating that the vaccine, which prevents the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), works best before girls are sexually active.

Human papillomavirus is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world, and most women have had it-- 80 percent of US women, by the CDC's estimates. Often it goes away on its own, without its carrier's awareness. But each year hundreds of thousands of women and girls in the United States develop persistent infections from it, more than 10,000 get cervical cancer and 3,700 die from the cancer.

Gardasil, given in a series of three shots, protects against four strains of HPV. Two of those strains cause 70 percent of the nation's cervical cancer cases, and two of them cause 90 percent of genital warts. This new vaccine, widely given, has the potential to make cervical cancer almost obsolete here.

All good news, right?

Apparently not.

Today, as thirty-one state legislatures consider mandating the vaccine for middle school girls, skepticism about the wisdom of embarking on this swift and widespread inoculation program has bubbled up from critics who span the political spectrum. These strange bedfellows include Christian conservatives and their abstinence-only ilk, who have long argued that safe sex encourages profligate sex; a slew of Big Pharma critics, who see how Merck (which stands to make $4 billion a year on the vaccine by most estimates) is angling to corner this huge new vaccine market; the growing antivaccine movement, which objects to all such school-entry requirements; the parental-rights folks with a libertarian strain, who bridle at any mandates regarding their children's health; and a smattering of women's health advocates, who worry that the pace of the vaccine's introduction is jeopardizing its ultimate success. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/houppert

being guinea pigs for pharma's profits.

If only this vaccine had been around when I was a young girl -- I could have been spared lots of pain, fear, and doctor's visits. I wouldn't have hesitated to try something that could have improved my health and potentially saved many lives. Although I don't have a daughter, if I ever do, I won't hesitate to get her vaccinated. And I'm sure there are many cancer, HIV, etc. patients out there who are very glad that there are people willing to be guinea pigs for the sake of scientific advancement, pharmaceutical profits be damned. This is not a trite and simplistic good vs. evil argument -- it's just not that black and white.

and I am not being trite here, but this is NOT a "public health emergency" as Gov. Perry said. We are not talking about smallpox, polio, influenza, or even AIDS here.

We are dealing with an amoral industry trying to maximize profits on something they feel they can market.

I have 2 daughters. I can accept the fact they will have sex. I can even live with the odds they might get sick someday. I could not live with myself were they to get sick because I ran out and got them vaccinated against something they MIGHT get, especially years before they are sexually active.

I hope you can see the bigger picture.

Cheers.

Having had health issues myself, and having seen someone die from cervical cancer caused by HPV, there's no way I would not protect a girl from a virus that infects most sexually active women, and from something that can kill her DEAD, not just make her sick.

And big pharma definitely sucks in so many ways, but no way in hell I would let my political beliefs endanger my children. What should I say to my sick child who comes down with whooping cough, for example? Hey, sorry you feel bad, sorry I didn't get you vaccinated, but at least Mommy didn't cave in to capitalism and allow Merck to make money off of you? Then should I let him die because some other pharma company makes money off the treatment drugs? To me, letting them be susceptible to life-threatening diseases is endangering them, but I realize others fear mercury or adverse reactions or drugs in general more -- and that's their business.

I would NEVER be in favor of forced vaccinations. I am a big believer in individuals making all medical decisions. I just would hate to see political leanings of any stripe make it difficult for anyone to get the health care options they choose to have.

If I were anti-vaccine because of profit-turning, then I'd have to be anti-lots of important medicines -- in fact, I'd have to be against about 90% of the products I use on a daily basis. It's not realistic for me to boycott all profitable entities. Hell, I'd have to boycott my husband, as he brings home a paycheck.

I was just addressing the one that I get hit with all the time, the "Don't you believe what the scientists say?"

Well, no. Sorry. Not anymore.

And the funniest thing is, sometimes this question comes from people who deny even more basic science like evolution, natural selection, carbon dating, and the speed of light.

I am not against profits, they are what makes the world go round. I am against profits being made with scare tactics, bad science, and marketing plans.

The fact is, whenever it seems like something is controversial, the people who educate themselves early on are looked on as freaks, malcontents, or worse when they point out potential problems.

Not just in medicine, but public policy, technology... whatever.

I have been down this road so many times. Am I sometimes wrong? YES. Is it worth it. Yes, to me it is.