Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israeli doctor heads Merck team that has developed vaccine against cervical cancer
ISRAEL21c ^ | June 14, 2006 | Staff

Posted on 06/23/2006 7:21:19 AM PDT by veronica

An Israeli-born doctor stands at the head of team from pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. Inc. who announced this week the FDA approval of the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer

Senior director of Clinical Research, Merck Research Laboratories Dr. Eliav Barr, originally from Haifa, said about bout the genetically engineered vaccine Gardasil, "This is the first time we have been able to state that administration of the vaccine is going to have an effect on cervical cancer."

In the United States, almost 10,000 women develop cervical cancer each year, leading to 3,000 deaths. In the developing world, the problem is far worse, probably because women are less likely to get screenings that can catch unusual growths before they become cancerous. Worldwide, cervical cancer kills 300,000 women a year.

Almost all the cases of cervical cancer are caused by infection with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, which causes normal cells to multiply out of control. Some strains of HPV lead to cancer (two strains account for 70% of cervical cancers), and others cause genital warts.

Because cervical cancer does not occur in women who have not contracted HPV, Merck, under Barr's guidance, has developed what is essentially the world's first cancer vaccine.

Public health experts called the Gardasil vaccine a major advance against the disease. "This vaccine is a significant advance in the protection of women's health in that it strikes at the infections that are the root cause of many cervical cancers," acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach told Reuters.

Given in three doses over six months, Gardasil targets four HPV types believed to cause more than 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts. The vaccine was approved for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26, Merck said.

Barr started his medical career as a cardiologist. So it was quite a shift in the mid-1990s when his employer, Merck, asked Barr to join a team that was developing an HPV vaccine.

"I had to go look up what HPV meant," Barr, 42, told The Intelligencer. "This is about as far as you can get from medicine."

Barr said he's overwhelmed by the feeling that he's helped develop something that will save millions of lives.

"It's very difficult to describe," Barr said. "One gets very emotional. It's really a once-in-a-lifetime kind of thing."

The biggest challenge for Gardasil comes because of the target market: adolescent girls. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, and some 20 million American men and women have it. To prevent women from getting cervical cancer, women must be inoculated before they become sexually active. But for some parents and religious groups, that might be a touchy question.

Merck's Barr says that won't be a problem. "You have to understand what's at stake here," he told Forbes. "Regardless of your background, as a parent, you want to be able to protect your child against cancer."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-259 next last
To: Alama; ThisLittleLightofMine
But wishing cancer on those that don't have any problem with it is the sign of fanatical obscurantism...

TLLOM never said that. Here's what they said....I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

She's talking abstinence, not promiscuity. Don't put words in her mouth she didn't say.

21 posted on 06/23/2006 7:57:29 AM PDT by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: veronica
I heard somewhere that the vaccine does not contain a live virus, not even a dead virus. Instead, the vaccine contains a protein from a virus that triggers the immunological response in a person.

Great news.

22 posted on 06/23/2006 7:57:35 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george wythe

Is it a new technique?


23 posted on 06/23/2006 7:59:38 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alama

Oh yes it definitely is, you've definitely convinced me that you are ABSOLUTEDLY right and that I AM EVIL for questioning this vaccine.


24 posted on 06/23/2006 7:59:47 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
"God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations."

You wanted to see a real asinine statement? Some innocent girl that marries a man who is a carrier of this horrible disease should be forced to deal with that hell because of something she had no part of?

25 posted on 06/23/2006 8:00:02 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

And even if she had premarital sex... Is it a good reason not to immunize her against a horrible disease?

HELLO...


26 posted on 06/23/2006 8:02:53 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pbrown; Alama; ThisLittleLightofMine
But wishing cancer on those that don't have any problem with it is the sign of fanatical obscurantism...TLLOM never said that. Here's what they said....I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.... She's talking abstinence, not promiscuity. Don't put words in her mouth she didn't say.

I don't she meant it that way, but opposing the development of this drug doesn't "wish" cance on people, it assures it. Like it or not according to the CDC about 3/4 of American women have had a HPV infection by middle age. That's a lot of women.

27 posted on 06/23/2006 8:07:08 AM PDT by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alama

I know, most of these people are all for any cure of some disease that they can get by walking around in a supermarket, but if its one that is contacted by any means other than what actions they approve of then all they say boils down to "It's about the SIN..."


28 posted on 06/23/2006 8:07:30 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: veronica
"Because cervical cancer does not occur in women who have not contracted HPV ..."

That's not how I read the medical literature on this, which generally indicates that HPV is absent (or at least undetectable) in 30-33% of all cervical cancer cases.
29 posted on 06/23/2006 8:07:33 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veronica
Has it REALLY been tested?

I hate to say it but pharms are rather hard up for NEW products. They're up to their eye balls in law suits for shoddy testing and drugs.
30 posted on 06/23/2006 8:08:04 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

I can see it now.

"No, my daughter at age 10 isn't haveing sex".

Doctor: "It's mandatory to have this shot."


31 posted on 06/23/2006 8:09:39 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nmh

If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:

Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer

You: But I told her not to have sex...


32 posted on 06/23/2006 8:12:31 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Who opposes the drug?

TLLOM, was talking about not have pre-marital sex. How did that get twisted into wishing cancer on someone or opposing the drug? Here's what she said....

Well hopefully if my daughter decide to marry men who have had previous relations, they would be tested for HPV along with AIDS etc. I haven't stated whether or not I would be for immunization or against having it, I just stated that once again one of the natural consequences of premarital sex are being removed.

If premarital sex was taken out of the equasion on the part of both the man and woman, they would have no need for the drug. In this day and age where children are having sex and getting pregnant at 13, the drug will be a lifesaver.

33 posted on 06/23/2006 8:13:21 AM PDT by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

Yes... It will...


34 posted on 06/23/2006 8:14:57 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
Pay no attention to the riffraff.

"How long will it be before they require this as part of immunization schedule? God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations. I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage."

Our stance is NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE.

Then you won't need ANY of these drugs for STD's and no side effects. Amazing how far just a little common sense will take you. Years ago it was standard advice and we didn't have the epidemic of STD's or HIV cases. Now that we chose to believe, "they'll do it anyway" and shove EXPLICIT sex at every opportunity - guess what? Kids are active at lower and lower ages. The emotional price of being used and tossed aside is also devastating - especially for females. Females are scarred emotionally by being someones "tissue".

Some will never get it! So ignore the ugly riffraff.
35 posted on 06/23/2006 8:16:12 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nmh

No Problem ...

Just wait until your daughter comes up to you and announces that she is going to have sex - then get her to wait six months until the series of 3 shots can be completed.

Sure ... that'll work ...


36 posted on 06/23/2006 8:18:00 AM PDT by RS ("I took the drugs because I liked them and I found excuses to take them, so I'm not weaseling.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Kin Canute anybody?


37 posted on 06/23/2006 8:18:10 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alama

If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:

Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer

You: But I told her not to have sex...




I suggest you don't have kids.

When you raise a child properly you don't have this ending.
They actually WANT to do the right thing - whether it's NOT having sex to NOT taking ILLEGAL drugs.


38 posted on 06/23/2006 8:19:16 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pbrown
Who opposes the drug?...TLLOM, was talking about not have pre-marital sex. How did that get twisted into wishing cancer on someone or opposing the drug? Here's what she said....

The comment being addressed was

How long will it be before they require this as part of immunization schedule? God forbid they allow anyone to suffer the consequence of premarital relations. I don't wish cancer on anyone but it seems to me or money would be better spent on educating our children, especially our young women on the real dangers of having sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

Personally I think Merck should spend their money on developing drugs, not education. Personally I think the connection between the risk of disease and promiscuous sex it tenuous at best, and likely nonexistent.

39 posted on 06/23/2006 8:21:21 AM PDT by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alama
If you are a good parent, you'll decide to give it by yourself to avoid this conversation at age 16:

Doctor: I am sorry, your daughter has cervical cancer

You: But I told her not to have sex...




As a GOOD parent I won't be getting this shot for her.

As an IRRESPONISBLE parent who doesn't raise their daughter properly, I'd want to give it to her asap.
40 posted on 06/23/2006 8:21:43 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-259 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson