Replies

Using your logic, Vioxx should never have been taken off the shelf. Using your logic, it's okay that a small segment of the population has a higher incidence of heart attack and stroke as long as another small segment of the population finds arthritis relief. Forgive me, but I find the thought of trading some girls long term health for the short term post-treatment reproductive capabilities of another small group of girls to be positively monstrous. I know you mean well and your heart is in the right place. The lenses through which you view the world show a more Utopian place than mine -- through yours Merck is not profit driven, government is not subject to corrupting influence, and all these parents are just reporting unfortunate and unrelated coincidence. We've already been down this road with Vioxx and it just is not true (click). People die and are debilitated even as drug studies report safety and efficacy and government organizations are derelict in their duties. What makes the Gardasil situation atrocious is visiting this debilitation on unsuspecting, innocent, and trusting children.

In the case of Gardasil, the risk is no higher or different than the risk for any other vaccine. The risk of a sore arm is judged acceptable in view of the benefit of decreased disease and healthcare costs.

I hardly consider 250,000 to 1 million new cases of cervical dysplasia per year a "small group of girls." In terms of health care costs, long-term health risks, and risks to fertility, that's a huge number. Personally, I think it's atrocious that parents would expose their children to painful medical procedures and permanent damage to their reproductive organs because of unfounded rumors and fears.

Since you seem to think that the only driving factor is profit (as if profiting by providing a life-saving service is somehow immoral), keep in mind that it is far more profitable to not vaccinate, and let women develop the disease. A diagnostic colposcopy with biopsy would cost roughly $1000. The treatment method and price depend on the biopsy results, but can range up into several thousand dollars. If the disease progresses to metastatic cancer, then the prices rise even more. In contrast, the Gardasil vaccine series costs $360 plus doctor fees. For less than the cost of a colposcopy, the need for one can be decreased by about 70%. Price isn't the only consideration--the colposcopy and subsequent treatment are incredibly painful.

With every drug, there is a risk/benefit assessment. In the case of Vioxx, it turned out that there was a small increased risk of a cardiovascular event among those taking the drug, and the decision was made that this risk outweighed the benefits. With other drugs, the same level of risk might be deemed acceptable with regard to the benefit.

It find that analysis incredibly naive and shallow. Perhaps you are correct and the 11,500+ lawsuits from 23,000+ patients had nothing to do with it. Perhaps five $10+ million awards through trial verdict, with more cases pending, and a $4.85 billion dollar settlement was just anecdotal ... a correlation but not a causation. Maybe the drug company was simply doing the right thing deciding the risk outweighed the benefit and pulled their drug willingly from the shelf. But I'm not drinking that kool-aid. Truly your world is far more Utopian than mine.