Healthy Skepticism Library item: 8524

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Profit and Public Health
Washington Post 2007 Feb 11B06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021001178.html

Full text:

A useful vaccine, and a tone-deaf lobbying campaign on its behalf

THE DEBATE over requiring girls to receive a shot against a sexually
transmitted virus that sometimes causes cervical cancer should be about
what’s in the best interests of these young women. It should not be
about the interests of the maker of the vaccine. Regrettably, the two
are being confused thanks to a lobbying effort undertaken across the
country by Merck & Co. on behalf of its new product.

Merck makes Gardasil, the vaccine approved by the Food and Drug
Administration as effective against strains of the human papillomavirus
(HPV) leading to most cases of cervical cancer. Merck also, according to
reports by the Associated Press and Baltimore Sun, is helping to finance
efforts across the nation to persuade states to make the vaccine
mandatory for all girls. It has had success in Texas, where Gov. Rick
Perry ® issued an executive order requiring the vaccine, and in
Virginia, where bills have passed both houses of the General Assembly.
Merck’s involvement in Texas has become particularly controversial
because Mr. Perry’s former chief of staff now lobbies for the company
and because the governor has ties to a national women’s advocacy group
that is active in the campaign and also receives funding from Merck. Mr.
Perry’s unilateral action cut the legislature, and by extension the
public, out of any discussion of the issues and is likely to make public
compliance with his policy more difficult.

Merck officials say that they are simply promoting policies that benefit
public health: What’s more benign than a vaccine able to prevent cancer?
We don’t disagree either about the efficacy of the vaccine, which the
FDA says has been demonstrated in extensive tests, or the argument for
its widespread use. There is, though, something unseemly about a company
that stands to make billions of dollars driving a debate that already is
sensitive because it involves young girls, sex and parental rights.
Merck’s commercial interests unnecessarily muddy the waters and give
critics ammunition with which to attack worthwhile legislation. Indeed,
in Maryland the sponsor of such a bill recently pulled the measure after
reports surfaced about Merck’s lobbying.

The best move Merck can now make is to back off. Happily, that’s not
necessary in the District, where the only role Merck has played has
appropriately been to provide information in response to questions from
D.C. Council members. Virginia is a different matter. Sen. Janet D.
Howell (D-Fairfax) and Del. Phillip A. Hamilton (R-Newport News),
sponsors of bills that passed in the respective houses, are right to
push for Virginia to take the lead in fighting cervical cancer. But
Merck’s help needlessly clouds the issue. While continuing to promote
their initiative, the legislators might want to think about how they can
bolster public confidence. Returning campaign contributions would be a
good step.