Research, Develop, and Sell, Sell, Sell: Part Two in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

As noted in part one of this series of four articles, Setting the Stage, in 2006, Merck captured worldwide attention with the introduction of what is often touted as the first ever vaccine against cancer. Effective against two strains of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) that account for 70% of cervical cancer cases, the vaccine shows real promise for reducing HPV infection in women.

These articles are not primarily about the efficacy of Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, or of GlaxoSmithKline's competing vaccine, Cervarix, which has not yet received FDA approval. Dr. Diane Harper, who has studied HPV for twenty years and worked on the drug trials for both vaccines, told me emphatically that "The vaccines are good and will indeed prevent cervical cancer." But Dr. Harper has serious concerns about Merck's marketing juggernaut, and the push for vaccine mandates for middle-school aged girls.

"I'll give Merck credit – there is absolutely nothing factually incorrect in Merck’s advertisements. But the interpretation of the rock stars, and the media, and of everyone else is that this vaccine will completely eliminate cervical cancer. I’ve worked with ABC, with NBC, and even on their nightly news, their headline is 'HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer.' It's true, that is a true headline, but it is not accurate."

What has not been done to date is to separate the real value of the vaccine from the PR push to benefit Merck's bottom line, and to track the players involved in hyping the issue and pushing for mandates. In this, the second article in a four-part series, we'll look at the marketing and "education" campaigns, how they have been interpreted and implemented and the risks involved.

Viral Marketing (Literally)

As discussed in the first article of this series, Merck is in the enviable position of having the first HPV vaccine on the market. Even without state governments making vaccination required through mandates, there is undoubtedly a robust market for a drug that is being heralded as one of the medical miracles of our time, especially with a 16 to 19 month lead on its closest competitor.

Merck used their deep pockets to make sure that even before the FDA had approved Gardasil, there was a growing awareness of and concern about -- one might even say fear of -- HPV among U.S. women. The marketing juggernaut was multifaceted and meticulously planned. In 2005 Merck started by funding a campaign called "Make the Connection," which was run by the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF) and the celebrity charity Step Up Women's Network. The national campaign was launched September 30, 2005, in Tampa, FL, with what would become the standard formula of a celebrity, a medical professional, and an opportunity for attendees to bead their own "Make the Connection" bracelets. Partnering with non-profits, especially non-profits that appears to have patients' health and women's issues as their primary concerns, helped Merck reach audiences that may have rightly been suspicious of the motivations of a pharmaceutical company. But with even cursory examination, CRPF looks like a drug industry funded group wrapped in non-profit clothing.

According to their website, CRPF was founded in 1985 by Carolyn Aldigé a year after she lost her father to cancer. As is often the case with patient groups, CRPF's 2006 annual report lists several pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi-Aventis as funders. In fact, all of those and more gave in excess of $100,000 to the organization during 2006, with several others giving at only slightly lower levels. In addition, CRPF received more than $100,000 from the industry lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in 2006. CRPF needs to be bringing in big grants: according to their 2006 IRS 990 filing, available at Guidestar, as President of CRPF, Aldigé makes $256,000 a year and has a total compensation package of more than $286,000 annually.

Katherine Heigl of "Grey's Anatomy" sports a Make the Connection bracelet at the 2006 NAACP Awards.Katherine Heigl of "Grey's Anatomy" sports a Make the Connection bracelet at the 2006 NAACP Awards.Merck's other campaign partner, Step Up Women's Network, describes itself as a "nonprofit, membership organization dedicated to strengthening community resources for women and girls." Demonstrating the healthy self-esteem that they want to promote in young women, SUWN immodestly states that "by making philanthropy accessible to every woman at any level, Step Up Women's Network should be the first organization that women think of when they think of making a difference." Likely aided by founder Kaye Popofsky Kramer's past as a talent agent, SUWN boasts a roster of celebrity supporters that includes popular U.S. TV and movie actors Jessica Alba, Courteney Cox-Arquette, Geena Davis, Brooke Shields, Aisha Tyler, Kerry Washington, Anjelica Huston, Jane Kaczmarek, and Marg Helgenberger. This celebrity pantheon served "Make the Connection" well. On the SUWN website, there is a video montage of celebrities hitting the news and talk show circuits plugging the campaign and the bracelets made to somehow illustrate the link between the HPV virus and cancer. Celebrities adorned their red carpet and Hollywood party garb with the bracelets, and visitors to the Make the Connection website could order a free bracelet kit. The montage estimates that 563 million people were reached by the TV spots and print coverage in Elle, Redbook, Self, People, Women's Health and many more popular magazines.

"Make the Connection" was eventually transformed into "Make the Commitment." Also produced by CRPF and SUWN with funding from Merck, "Make the Commitment" nudged women along the path of demanding Gardasil when it would be FDA approved and available, as well as offering the ubiquitous bracelet kits. A list of events around the country from late 2005 through summer 2006 notes appearances by celebrities and medical professionals that also include beading activities for attendees to make their own bracelets. At the "Make the Commitment" website, women are challenged to sign the following pledge:

"I, (your name), am making the commitment to talk with my healthcare professional in January about ways that I can prevent cervical cancer, including getting regular cervical cancer screenings."

Since January is designated as Cervical Health Awareness Month in the U.S., this pledge to talk with their doctors about cervical cancer would ensure that medical practitioners were being approached from all sides -- from Merck's drug reps, from patients, and with any luck, by state legislators. Always generous to those that serve them, the site states that for each commitment made, Merck would donate one dollar to CRPF, up to $100,000, for cervical cancer awareness and screening programs.

So far, Merck had encouraged women to "Make the Connection" and "Make the Commitment." Those were low-key efforts compared to the most significant pre-approval effort -- the "Tell Someone" commercials. This is not a new technique by any means. In his 1928 classic, "Propaganda," father of the modern PR industry Edward Bernays described at length how it is not enough to sell a product. Instead, you need to sell the vision that will lead to desire for the product, with the consumer believing that it is their own idea. The "Tell Someone" spots did not mention Gardasil since it was not yet FDA approved, but did include Merck's name and logo. They showed actors portraying everyday women being shocked that HPV is so prevalent and that there is a link to cervical cancer. "I was stunned at how many people have HPV. I was stunned. Millions? That's insane," says one woman. With a sense of urgency, all the women pledge to tell someone they love, while pointing to a speech bubble on their plain white t-shirt that says "Tell Someone."

Tell Someone commercials
Tell Someone commercials can be seen online at Merck's HPV website. Click to view ad.

In a May 2006, article, Bloomberg News' Angela Zimm and Justin Blum noted that not everyone was taken in. "Gary Ruskin, executive director of Commercial Alert, a consumer group based in Portland, Oregon, that is critical of drug company advertising, said Merck's promotional Web site on the viral connection to cervical cancer is 'deceptive and dishonest. Merck doesn't tell you why the site exists, which is to sell Gardasil,' Ruskin said." Kelley Dougherty, the Merck spokeswoman, protested that the campaign wasn't about Gardasil. "This campaign is part of a broad and longstanding Merck public health commitment to encourage education about the disease."

However, the Bloomberg article also cited Richard Haupt, executive director of medical affairs in Merck's vaccine division, stating that the company has "invested in public affairs and consumer education more than we've done for any vaccine in the past." (emphasis added.) The Bloomberg reporters calculated that Merck spent $841,000 for Internet ads on HPV's link to cervical cancer in the first quarter of 2006 alone. In April 2006, they bought 295 TV advertising spots for the HPV campaign, followed by 788 spots in May. It wasn't until June 2006, that the FDA approved Gardasil.

The Current Campaign

Advertising for Gardasil has not slowed. Once the FDA approved Gardasil, Merck could finally make their message overt: "Learn about HPV and cervical cancer, and be sure to ask for our vaccine by name." On November 13, 2006, Merck announced the launch of its direct-to-consumer advertising campaign "One Less," consisting of television, print and online ads. The upbeat commercials feature young women and girls engaged in a variety of activities – playing soccer, shooting baskets, skateboarding, drumming, and dancing – saying that they want to be "one less statistic," "one less woman who will battle cervical cancer." Young women are shown writing "one less" on a gym shoe, and appliquéing "one less" on the front of a hoodie. Young girls jumping rope at the end chant "I want to be one less, one less! O-N-E-L-E-S-S!" While some of the girls are pictured with parents or other adults, the message is clearly meant to be girls talking to other girls.

Merck and Edelman, Take a Bow

The PR genius behind all stages of Merck's HPV and Gardasil campaigns is the PR giant Edelman. The world's largest independent PR firm, Edelman boasts more than 2,100 employees working in 46 wholly owned offices worldwide, plus the additional resources of more than 50 affiliates. They report $299 million in revenues for FY 2006. In addition to Merck, Edelman works on behalf of the industry lobby group PhRMA, as well as some of the largest pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abbott Laboratories, and Johnson & Johnson. They proudly promote their health-related expertise as being adept in pioneering "health relationships with health care companies, advocacy organizations, foundations, NGOs and academic institutions." Co-optation, anyone?

Edelman has made a name for itself outside of the pharmaceutical realm as well. A key chapter in Edelman's long and sordid history is their work on behalf of Big Tobacco. For example, in 1978, Edelman, working on behalf of R.J. Reynolds, produced a document titled Taking the Initiative on the Smoking Issue: A Total Program. The introduction states "The public mind-set against cigarettes is so firm that one cannot conscientiously promise miracles from the campaign suggested here. But we believe this program, executed effectively, can begin to slow or reverse the growing negative trends in public opinion regarding smoking; can stimulate a more balanced media coverage of smoking; and can generate a more congenial dialogue between smokers and non-smokers." In 1987, Edelman was tapped by INFOTAB, the international tobacco industry group made up of the major worldwide tobacco companies and their associated trade organizations, to work on a campaign to counter growing worldwide concerns about second-hand smoke. The product, a document titled "INFOTAB ETS Project: The Overall Plan," includes objectives like asserting that second-hand smoke is "just one (and a very minor) factor in a complex atmospheric mix which also includes petrol/diesel fumes, dust, bacteria, particles of dead skin, (particularly in air conditioned environments), solids of all kinds, pollen, and in industrial situations an enormous variety of chemical fumes and substances." Another aim is to "position the super-sensitive and vocal supporters of controls as an unrepresentative minority within a largely tolerant public -- a minority whose interests deserve care and consideration but should not be allowed to impose regulation upon the majority."

Edelman has consistently positioned itself as a PR firm that can successfully create partnerships between businesses and non-profits that will serve their corporate clients well. Two of their success stories are the Chiquita-Rainforest Alliance and Home Depot-Forest Stewardship Council relationship. Lest the full impact of their services not be appreciated by potential clients, Edelman spelled it out bluntly in a December, 2000, press release: "You've got an environmental disaster on your hands. Have you consulted with Greenpeace in developing your crisis response plan? Co-opting your would-be attackers may seem counter-intuitive, but it makes sense when you consider that NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are trusted by the public nearly two-to-one to 'do what's right' compared with government bodies, media organizations and corporations."

Edelman's work on the HPV campaigns has gained attention and adulation for itself and for Merck. The website of Pharmaceutical Executive Magazine published a lengthy and fawning article in February 2007, detailing why it selected Gardasil as its first annual Brand of the Year. "By combining innovative science, strategic commercialization, and savvy disease education, Team Gardasil created a campaign that evoked Merck in its prime -- and made strides toward stamping out cervical cancer." The article bluntly praises the manipulation of women and girls in Merck's campaigns. Author Beth Herskovits writes, "The disease awareness effort did more than just play on cancer fears, but drew on themes of safeguarding your children (for moms) and empowerment (for girls)." She goes on to quote Bev Lybrand, Merck's vice president and general manager for Gardasil. "Of course everyone understands cancer and is scared of cancer, but we learned early on that moms really wanted to protect their daughters -- that protective insight is important. For young women, they want to empower themselves to take control of their own destiny."

One of eight e-cards available at the "Tell Someone" campaign website.One of eight e-cards available at the "Tell Someone" campaign website.Merck and Edelman were also big winners at the May 3, 2007, PhAME Awards, which bill themselves as "the first and most comprehensive awards ceremony focusing on pharmaceutical consumer marketing and communications." Merck took home the Public Health Award, "presented annually to the consumer marketing advertisement that can demonstrate the most positive impact on patient/public health" for the "Tell Someone" campaign. Also recognized were two advertising agencies that worked on the project, DDB Worldwide and Rapp Collins. The "Tell Someone" campaign also won for Best Integrated Campaign, Best Multicultural Campaign, and Best Unbranded Ad. Merck also took home best Marketer of the Year.

In addition, Nancy Turett, Global President for Health at Edelman, was inducted into the prestigious Hall of PhAME, which "provides special recognition to individuals or teams who have demonstrated significant excellence in pharmaceutical marketing leadership and/or advancement of consumer marketing efforts over the past several years." In a September 2002, article in Pharmaceutical Executive Magazine entitled "Forging Alliances", Turett is quoted as asking, "So what does PR stand for? It stands for powerful relationships. The heart of PR is third-party credibility." She continued, "Third-party messages are an essential means of communication for validating scientific credibility, for legitimizing products, for building brand and disease awareness, and for building defenses against crises. As advocates develop louder voices, pharma companies must forge alliances and win allies."

So, What's the Harm? The Risks of Believing the Hype

Ironically, there is serious concern that vaccination may in fact create a false sense of security that will make reliable and effective Pap screening seem less important and cases of HPV infection that develop into cervical cancer more common. As with other cancers, the World Health Organization's (WHO)'s recommended approach to cervical cancer is comprehensive, "comprising prevention, early detection and screening, treatment and palliative care. The future addition of vaccine to the armoury in the fight against cervical cancer will be only one component of any successful strategy," says Dr Andreas Ullrich, Medical Officer Cancer Control at WHO's Department of Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion. Even with the promise of an effective vaccine, "There is no question that early detection will continue to be a key element even once a vaccine is available."

Merck is counting on word-of-mouth marketing by women to push the demand for GardasilMerck is counting on word-of-mouth marketing by women to push the demand for GardasilMerck may try to say that their "education" campaigns are not about Gardasil specifically, but the result is obviously building interest in a quick-fix solution. Dr. Diane Harper is a professor at the Dartmouth Medical School, and has been studying HPV for almost 20 years. She was involved with both Merck and GlaxoSmithKline in drug trial design as well as a principal investigator at the clinic site for both the phase two and phase three trials for both Gardasil and its soon to be competitor, Cervarix. In our interview, I asked Dr. Harper if she is worried that vaccination and general misunderstanding could lead to reduced screening. "I think those are very valid concerns," she said. "I've heard it myself. You go through the grocery store aisles, to the beauty shop, to the local concert and if anyone's talking about the vaccine, what you hear is 'I think I’m going to get that vaccine because I won't have to get my Paps anymore.' I think the risk of that is really very high." Dr Harper used the case of Finland as an unfortunate illustration. Finland has long been the gold standard of effective cervical cancer screening programs -- they were close to 100% participation. But because the early screening and treatment were so effective and comprehensive, young women became lax in their participation. Because young Finns have never known someone who has had cervical cancer, the risk doesn't seem serious enough to motivate them to get a Pap test regularly.

Dr. Harper is speaking out publicly about her concerns because she first took them to Merck but they fell on intentionally deaf ears. It is not just women on the street that are prone to the misconceptions that concern Dr. Harper. A February 1, 2007, Hartford Courant article quotes a Connecticut state legislator, DebraLee Hovey, as saying during a debate about a state government vaccination mandate, "Any person who becomes aware that they can vaccinate their young daughter, and their daughters will never have to worry about cervical cancer, will want to have it." This illustrates perfectly the faulty logic that the PR juggernaut has promoted and that Merck is loathe to correct. Ms. Hovey is a member of Women In Government, the focus of the next article in this series.

While Dr. Harper is confident that the vaccine is good and will in fact help prevent some cases of cervical cancer, there are serious issues about the push to vaccinate 11 and 12 year old girls. "We shouldn't think about this as a 'virgin vaccine.' … This is a vaccine that will prevent disease in women of all ages. So the target, and the extreme emphasis on twelve-year olds, is misleading to the public in making them feel that this is a vaccine that you have to get before anyone ... has touched your genitals." Dr. Harper added, "We also have some evidence now that Gardasil is losing efficacy after five years. So if you need a booster shot later, are we really providing the best protection by vaccinating at an early age?" Efficacy could be declining before the girl even becomes sexually active, and if a booster is needed, but is not given, a woman might assume the first shot is giving her coverage when it is no longer effective.

While Merck and its partners have been working to reach individuals to convince them of their need for this vaccine, they have also been pursuing an even more fruitful goal. Merck's hope is that most if not all states will mandate a vaccine against HPV as a pre-requisite for school attendance. A mandatory vaccination for more than half of the population is the financial equivalent of the Holy Grail for a pharmaceutical company. Dr. Harper mentioned that GlaxoSmithKline's competing vaccine, Cervarix, is showing longer efficacy than Gardasil in the trials, but since it is not yet on the market, "the push, if there was a mandate, would mean that all the vaccine would be purchased from Merck because they are currently the sole provider. No one's thinking about what happens in five or ten years and who pays for the boosters. Or that all of the work that we've done to get to these people will have to be re-done at intervals throughout their life in order to keep the rate of cancer actually lower."

In the next article, "Women In Government: Merck's Trojan Horse," we'll look in detail at the campaign for state mandates of the vaccines and at Women in Government, the industry-funded non-profit that serves as the bridge between Merck and the legislators it needs to win over.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I wish...

Merck's hope is that most if not all states will mandate a vaccine against HPV as a pre-requisite for school attendance. A mandatory vaccination for more than half of the population is the financial equivalent of the Holy Grail for a pharmaceutical company.

...they would push it around here. It'd give the rightwingers another "fabric of society" issue to get their minds off civil unions and the repeal of our unconstitutional parental notification law. They haven't stopped kvetching about those even though they're done deals.

OTOH, it could end up giving the homeschooling movement a big boost.

Nice little plug for Trojans. ;-)

"Reprint" of this article w/no attribution

Just thought you should know that most of this article appears on the BioMedicine website with no attribution.

It's under the title "Gardasil Could Be Effective, but Aggressive Marketing Raises Ethical Concerns"

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Gardasil-Could-Be-Effective--but-Aggressive-Marketing-Raises-Ethical-Concerns-23147-1/

Cancer

Most of those pharmaceutical company have only profit in their mind, they objective is to find a cure for cancer and then make as much profit as possible.
CSS Gallery
Is Merck different from most of them?

Many women, myself included,

Many women, myself included, have been affected by cervical cancer or Human Papillomavirus (HPV) at some point in their lives. In this series of four articles, I will examine HPV and Gardasil -- the facts, the hype, and what Merck stands to gain; the marketing campaigns promoting Gardasil in the U.S. and the media's lack of attention to concerns about the rush to mandate vaccination; the role of the non-profit group Women In Government in promoting mandatory vaccination against HPV; and what is going on outside of the U.S. on this issue.

HPV is rampant throughout the world, and the U.S. is no exception. It is estimated [1] that up to 20 million people in the U.S. are currently infected with HPV -- men as well as women. It is not surprising, therefore, that Gardasil [2] has burst onto the national stage as the latest 'wonder' vaccine. Manufactured by Merck [3], Gardasil is the first vaccine available that can prevent 4 strains of HPV, which is a leading cause of cervical cancer and pre-cancerous cervical conditions.

In nearly every state in the U.S. there is a legislative push to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for middle school aged girls, with catch-up clauses to cover girls that have passed that age but are not yet sexually active. Given the anxiety of most people about cancer and the number of people infected with HPV, it is not surprising that what is touted as the first vaccine against cancer has been largely greeted with acclaim. But despite having been affected personally, I became concerned by the headlong rush to not only approve the vaccine, but to mandate it for middle-school aged girls. It is also worrisome that a vaccine may give a false sense of security, which could lead to a decline in the very reliable and proven diagnostic tools available, including Pap tests. Decisions affecting millions of young women should not be made lightly, and certainly not without examining the marketing, PR, and profit motives of a corporation like Merck.

HPV and Cervical Cancer: Just the facts, Ma'am

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [4], as many as 50 percent of sexually active men and women become infected with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) at some point in their lives. Because the virus is so pervasive, by age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. It is estimated that each year an additional 6.2 million Americans becomes infected by one of the strains of HPV. It is important to note, however, that only a few strains of HPV actually cause cervical cancer.

Despite how ubiquitous the virus is, basic knowledge about HPV and its link to cervical cancer is sadly lacking in the U.S. population. According to the 2005 National Cancer Institute [5]'s Health Information National Trends survey, only 38.3% of U.S. women surveyed said that they had heard of Human Papillomavirus or HPV. In addition, less than 50% thought that HPV caused cervical cancer [6].

HPV is significant not only because of the high infection rates among the population. HPV infection can affect fertility, can cause the sexually transmitted disease (STD) genital warts, and some strains can lead, in rare cases according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [7], to cervical cancer. The CDC goes on to say that "Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own." That is to say, without any treatment, many infections are addressed by the body's own immune system. (The National Cancer Institute's survey noted that nearly 80% of women mistakenly believed that the body could not resolve the infection without treatment [8].)

Pap smears can detect early pre-cancerous conditions and have drastically improved survival rates. For those whose bodies are unable to counter the infection without assistance, a Pap test [9] provides a reliable method of detection, which, coupled with appropriate treatment, has drastically reduced the mortality rate of cervical cancer patients. The National Institutes of Health points out that [10] HPV does not lead directly to cervical cancer but causes cell abnormalities, or dysplasia, which can over time develop into cancer. It is a slow progression, and "this pre-cancerous condition can be detected by a Pap smear and is 100% treatable." In addition, 92% of women are alive 5 years after a cervical cancer diagnosis if the cancer was kept from spreading outside of the cervical area.

So why is cervical cancer still an issue for women? In the developing world, lack of access to healthcare and routine tests like the Pap smear means that infections and early pre-cancerous conditions are not detected, and if and when women are diagnosed, it is with advanced, invasive cervical cancer that may have metastasized to other parts of the body. In addition, other cervical cancer risk factors, such as becoming sexually active at an early age and giving birth to several children, are more common for women in developing countries.

Globally, cervical cancer is the third most common type of cancer in women. It is much less common in the United States because of routine use of Pap smears for early detection, at least if you are white and economically privileged. In the U.S., tremendous racial and economic disparities exist in the general rates of cancer diagnosis, and cervical cancer is even worse than most. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [11] have found that African American women still die from both cervical and breast cancer at much higher rates than white women. Perhaps due to cultural beliefs that talking about diseases can bring bad luck, Vietnamese women in the U.S. are 5 times more likely to develop cervical cancer than their white counterparts. Limited access to health care services and language and cultural barriers contribute to low rates of screening and treatment for other minority groups, such as Latinas, American Indian or Alaska Natives, Asian-American, and Pacific Islander women. This leads to later diagnosis and more invasive cancerous conditions that decrease the likelihood of survival for women in these groups.

Invasive cervical cancer is also more common in women middle aged and older, who are less likely to receive regular screening and early treatment, often due to lack of medical coverage, but also because of the misconception that it is a disease of younger women and that Pap tests are not as important as women age. Smoking also doubles the rate of cervical cancer. Not only do higher smoking rates correlate with lower levels of education and membership in a lower economic class, racial minorities have been consistently targeted by Big Tobacco marketing and so have had their cancer risk increased as well.

It can be informative to examine from what U.S. women are dying statistically. According to the American Heart Association [12], coronary heart disease, which causes heart attacks, is the leading cause of death for American women. "Many women believe that cancer is more of a threat, but they're wrong. Nearly twice as many women in the United States die of heart disease and stroke as from all forms of cancer, including breast cancer." Even so, a recent Washington Post article [13] states that more than 200,000 US women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year and 40,000 die annually as a result -- a mortality rate almost ten times higher than that of cervical cancer.

None of this is meant to minimize the tragedy of cervical cancer, with which more than 11,000 U.S. women are diagnosed each year and which, according to the American Cancer Society [14], is expected to claim 3,700 lives in the U.S. in 2007 alone, and many times more in developing countries. It is instead meant to set the stage and to keep in perspective the risk as we examine the push for mandatory vaccination, especially since not all cases of cervical cancer are caused by HPV infection.

Enter Gardasil, the 'Wonder Drug'

Produced by pharmaceutical mega-corporation Merck [15], Gardasil [16] is a vaccine given in a series of three injections before a girl has become sexually active to guard against HPV infection. Gardasil protects against four of the more than 30 strains of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. According to the Merck product site [17], "HPV Types 16 and 18 cause 70% of cervical cancer cases, and HPV Types 6 and 11 cause 90% of genital warts cases." Gardasil is the first vaccine approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [18] for prevention of HPV.

Gardasil is being touted as a "wonder drug" for women. Might it also be a wonder drug for Merck? In the world of drugs, vaccines for use by the whole population are close to corporate nirvana since they ensure a mass market for prevention instead of having to wait to identify the smaller number of people who actually develop a particular disease. In addition, mandating vaccination helps ensure a mass market and gets the government involved in what would otherwise be left to market forces.

The FDA's approval of Gardasil in June 2006, has allowed Merck to establish a substantial lead over its rival GlaxoSmithKline [20], which has an HPV vaccine, Cervarix, pending approval by the FDA. But by the time Cervarix is approved, which is expected to occur between October 2007 and January 2008, Gardasil will have enjoyed its monopoly status for between 16 and 19 months. Estimates of the global market value [21] for HPV vaccines are that it will be worth $2 billion to $4 billion within three years.

Equally significant is that Merck is still recovering from the Vioxx scandal [22] on 2005, in which Merck's prescription pain reliever was linked to an increase in heart attack risk. Worse still for the company was the assertion that Merck has intentionally kept secret findings of the risks associated with Vioxx while at the same time executing an aggressive direct-to-consumer advertising [23] campaign to increase demand for the drug.

The Vioxx recall is estimated to have cost Merck $2.5 billion in annual revenue. According to Merck [24], As of March 31, 2007, Merck "has been named as a defendant in approximately 27,250 lawsuits, which include approximately 45,700 plaintiff groups alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of VIOXX, and in approximately 266 putative class actions alleging personal injuries and/or economic loss." In May 2007, Merck announced that it would be facing litigation in CA, AL, FL, NV, WV, TX, and IL state courts as well as in federal court in the folllowing nine months.

In March, 2007, MSNBC reported [25] that Merck had a designated legal war chest of $1.64 billion for Vioxx legal costs, but had not set aside a penny for damages,intending to fight each case rather than settle out of court. As of September 2006, Merck had spent $325 million on defense costs during the first nine months of that year alone. MSNBC also reports that in New Jersey, a state Supreme Court panel is considering whether to uphold a lower court decision that would allow health insurers and union health plans to sue Merck jointly to recover money they paid for Vioxx prescriptions. Merck is appealing. If allowed to go forward, that lawsuit alone would potentially be worth more than $15 billion.

The Food and Drug Administration [26] did not escape unscathed either. As the New York Times reported [27] in December 2004,

"The Food and Drug Administration had shifted gears, slashing its laboratories and network of independent drug safety experts in favor of hiring more people to approve drugs, changes that arose under an unusual agreement that has left the agency increasingly reliant on and bound by drug company money. Discovering Vioxx's dangers would take four more years. ... As a result of the agency's shifting its resources, almost everyone, including critics, outside drug safety experts, medical journal editors, some industry executives and even top agency officials, now agrees that its mechanisms for uncovering the dangers of drugs after they have been approved are woefully inadequate."

Merck is pushing hard for a drug that in their ideal world would be given to every middle-school aged girl and would be mandated by each state. The FDA is assuring us that this drug is safe and effective for mass vaccination of young girls. With their combined track record, shouldn't we be concerned?

_____________________
Submited by : Libros Gratis

This article is very

This article is very interesting. I am glad that there are people like Katherine Heigl, that find time in making a big connection and contributing in this awareness.

Go Beading

Recent comments

Donate to CMD!
Pentagon Pundits
Know Fake News
CMD RSS Feeds

Upcoming Events

No upcoming events.

Weekly Radio Spin