Merck Lobbies for HPV Vaccine to Become Law

[JohnRM]

Merck Lobbies For HPV Vaccine to Become Law
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

AUSTIN, Texas — Merck & Co. is helping bankroll efforts to pass state laws requiring girls as young as 11 or 12 to receive the drugmaker's new vaccine against the sexually transmitted cervical-cancer virus.

Some conservatives and parents'-rights groups say such a requirement would encourage premarital sex and interfere with the way they raise their children, and they say Merck's push for such laws is underhanded. But the company said its lobbying efforts have been above-board.

With at least 18 states debating whether to require Merck's Gardasil vaccine for schoolgirls, Merck has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

A top official from Merck's vaccine division sits on Women in Government's business council, and many of the bills around the country have been introduced by members of Women in Government.

"Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer," Women in Government President Susan Crosby said.

Gardasil, approved by the federal government in June, protects girls and women against strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, that are responsible for most cases of cervical cancer. A government advisory panel has recommended that all girls get the shots at 11 and 12, before they are likely to be sexually active.

But no state has yet to add Gardasil to the list of vaccinations youngsters must have under law to be enrolled in school.

Merck spokeswoman Janet Skidmore would not say how much the company is spending on lobbyists or how much it has donated to Women in Government. Crosby also declined to specify how much the drug company gave.

But Skidmore said: "We disclosed the fact that we provide funding to this organization. We're not in any way trying to obscure that."

The New Jersey-based drug company could generate billions in sales if Gardasil — at $360 for the three-shot regimen — were made mandatory across the country. Most insurance companies now cover the vaccine, which has been shown to have no serious side effects.

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative watchdog group Texas Eagle Forum, said the relationship between Merck and Women in Government is too cozy.

"What it does is benefit the pharmaceutical companies, and I don't want pharmaceutical companies taking precedence over the authorities of parents," she said.

Adams said Merck's method of lobbying quietly through groups like Women in Government in addition to meeting directly with legislators are common in state government but still should raise eyebrows. "It's corrupt as far as I'm concerned," she said.

A mandatory vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease could be a tough sell in the Lone Star State and other conservative strongholds, where schools preach abstinence and parents' rights are sacrosanct.

But Merck has doubled its spending on lobbyists in Texas this year, to between $150,000 and $250,000, as lawmakers consider the vaccine bill for girls entering the sixth grade.

Also, the drugmaker has hired one of the state's most powerful lobbyists, Mike Toomey, who once served as Republican Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff and can influence conservatives who see him as one of their own.

"What we support are approaches that achieve high immunization rates," said Skidmore, the Merck spokeswoman. "We're talking about cervical cancer here, the second-leading cancer among women worldwide."

The legislation already has the enthusiastic support of the conservative governor.

"I look at this no different than vaccinating our children for polio," Perry said. "If there are diseases in our society that are going to cost us large amounts of money, it just makes good economic sense, not to mention the health and well being of these individuals to have those vaccines available."

Proposals for mandates have popped up from California to Connecticut since the first piece of legislation was introduced in September in Michigan. Michigan's bill was narrowly defeated last month. Lawmakers said the requirement would intrude on families' privacy, even though, as in most states' proposals, parents could opt out.

Even with such opt-out provisions, mandates take away parents' rights to make medical decisions for their children, said Linda Klepacki of the Colorado-based evangelical organization Focus on the Family. The group contends the vaccine should be available for parents who want it, but not forced on those who don't.

But Texas Rep. Jessica Farrar said her proposal is aimed at protecting children whose parents are less informed about or less interested in preventive care.

"Not everybody has equal sets of parents," said Farrar, a Houston Democrat who had precancerous cells removed from her cervix several years ago. "I think this is a public health issue and to not want to eradicate cervical cancer is irresponsible."

Drug-industry analyst Steve Brozak of W.B.B. Securities has projected Gardasil sales of at least $1 billion per year — and billions more if states start requiring the vaccine. "I could not think of a bigger boost," he said.

Just another development in the long line of reductions in our personal freedom.

 

[silver 2039]

Is it so terrible to immunize against an STD that its suddenly a human rights violation?

 

[cegman]

I dunno about making it law but I am curious about laws on measles or (tetnis? shot) aren't there laws about giving children other vaccines.

I mean isn't hepatitus mostly gotten through sexual contact and that isn't fought agaist afaik.

 

[JohnRM]

Am I wrong to believe that many who would support such a law also argue the a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body vis-a-vis the abortion issue? Hypocritical, if true.

Every person should have the right to what goes into their own body provided that there is no immediate threat to the greater population.

 

[Kraznaya]

We got a ****load of required vaccinations anyway, so its just the pharmaceuticals looking to press another one to make money. I don't know; I guess I don't mind helping Merck if it reduces STDs.

 

[warpus]

Yes, vaccinating our kids against STDs is sending a clear message that we want them to go out and fornicate with anything that moves.

Great logic there.

 

[JonnyB]

If it becomes law to have to take this vaccine then it should be law to have the vaccine supplied at the lowest cost possible. Force Merck to make the vaccine available to competitors and allow a bidding war to see who produces it.
Then we'll see if Merck still thinks the vaccine should be law.

 

[Kraznaya]

In other words... a generic?

 

[DaveShack]

I think if it's handled right, to the kids it's just an immunization. If you don't make a big deal about it being for a STD, then what incentive would it give girls to be sexually active?

Merck shouldn't be allowed to charge much for it, if they want to force people to use their product.

 

[nivi]

It's realy amazing how in the conservatives and liberals are realy the same.

Conservatives: They are encouraging sex the most evil thing on earth!.

Liberals: They are infringing on our rights to kill ourselves.





You don't want the vaccine? Sure thing, just don't count on the goverment if you get the cancer.

 

[Kraznaya]

It's realy amazing how in the conservatives and liberals are realy the same.

Conservatives: They are encouraging sex the most evil thing on earth!.

Liberals: They are infringing on our rights to kill ourselves.





You don't want the vaccine? Sure thing, just don't count on the goverment if you get the cancer.

Its obligatory for a disease you can't get without, well...

 

[woody60707]

I have to go with john on this one.

Being that children in the US are by law force to attend school to at least the age of 16 (age diff state to state and exclude home schooling) Any infections disease that can be transmitted in any reasonable school actives demonstrates a clear overriding public health issue superseding certain individual rights. (Lice, Flu vaccine, ect.)

HPV is not a overriding public health risk involved in any reasonable activities when attending a public school. There is no reasons of public health at school to violate their individuals or parental rights to get a HPV shot.

Therefor no laws should be enacted to force girls to get a HPV for the basis of attending public school.

yuck,.. i think i have been writing too many papers for logic class.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Am I wrong to believe that many who would support such a law also argue the a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body vis-a-vis the abortion issue? Hypocritical, if true.

Not hypocritical.

You don't have the right to be on a school campus without shots against meningitis, etc. Why? Because these diseases are contagious. Every person who's not vaccinated is a loophole diseases can exploit.

It's a public health issue, not a personal medical issue. By not vaccinating yourself you are endangering the health of other people.

I don't have a right to walk around the streets with **** smeared on my face = ZOMG THEY ARE RESTRICKTING MY PURSONAL FREDUMS naaaah.

Now, is HPV contagious enough to require vaccination? That's a different issue.

 

[Leifmk]

Now, is HPV contagious enough to require vaccination? That's a different issue.

It's one of those lurking thingys that many people (i.e. guys) can have forever without showing symptoms, and then ten years later they infect their partners (e.g. their wives, no matter how virtuous they have been) some of whom then get cancer and die horribly. Nice.

 

[woody60707]

It's one of those lurking thingys that many people (i.e. guys) can have forever without showing symptoms, and then ten years later they infect their partners (e.g. their wives, no matter how virtuous they have been) some of whom then get cancer and die horribly. Nice.

This in no way show why it is the duty of the public school system to enforce a hpv shot on people in a public place when there is no reasonable belief in a overriding health issue of the transmission of hpv when attending school.

 

[Leifmk]

This in no way show why it is the duty of the public school system to enforce a hpv shot on people in a public place when there is no reasonable belief in a overriding health issue of the transmission of hpv when attending school.

The above is incoherent to the point where I can't really understand what the heck you are trying to say.

 

[GinandTonic]

No cervical cancer = no need for smear test in later life?. How much will this save the gov? This is a no-brainer. Spend usd360 now and save tens or hundreds of thousands later.

This shot needs to be given before any sexual contact, but does not mean girls have to go out and get lid the net day. If women do not need smear tests after this consider not only the massive savings but the amount of unpleasantess saved. Not the most pleasant procedure by all accounts.

 

[brennan]

I'm pretty sure this would not render smear tests unnecessary, cervical cancer is not purely caused by this virus.

 

[GinandTonic]

I'm pretty sure this would not render smear tests unnecessary, cervical cancer is not purely caused by this virus.

"Cervical cancer is of particular interest to our members because it represents the first opportunity that we have to actually eliminate a cancer," Women in Government President Susan Crosby said.

Seems a little misleading if that is the case.

 

[sanabas]

Seems a little misleading if that is the case.

Yeah, it is a little misleading.

And I agree with some of the others posting here, the justification for compulsory vaccinations on the grounds of public health & the potential for transmitting disease to classmates do not make sense in the case of an STD.