The News-Gazette.com Weblog

Against the tide

A Tidal Wave of Legislation

Posted by: Rhonda Robinson

Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:39 PM

It seems that Naomi Jakobsson's modest proposal of vaccinating little girls against the devastating consequences of future promiscuity was only the beginning of a pharmaceutical marketing campaign that is now blanketing the nation.

The republican governor of Texas mandated the vaccine by executive order for all little girls going into sixth grade. Fox News reported that Merck doubled spending on lobbyists in Texas to $250,000. A drop in the bucket when you stand to gain over a billion annually, and muli-billions if the vaccine is mandatory.

Last count was over 26 states now introducing legislation on the HPV vaccine in some form.

Here is a map of the states that are seeing legislation on this vaccine.

The Wall Street Journal nailed it.

"The bills coincide with an aggressive lobbying campaign by Merck & Co., the maker of the only such vaccine on the market."

"If the state bills become law, they would guarantee the Whitehouse Station, N.J., drug maker billions of dollars in annual revenue from the vaccine."

Our own Rep. Naomi Jakobsson introduced legislation, and Senate President Emil Jones, (D-Chicago proposed sister legislation in the Senate.

Our legislators would have done well to consider that Gardasil, which vaccinates only against a sexually transmitted disease, costs $360 for all three shots, while MMR shots cost around $42.85 per dose.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "State Sen. Debbie Halvorson, who has championed mandatory HPV vaccinations, estimated that the initial cost to vaccinate the state's 18,000 uninsured 11 and 12-year-old girls at $4 million."

However, Jill Stanek blogged on the Illinois Review, a conservative news watch for Illinois politics, that the Senator's figure is purely political math. Stanek refigured in real dollars and notes that 18,000 x $360 = $6,480,000-- plus the office visit.

What would make fiscally strapped legislators across the nation so eager to take on this kind of financial burden for their states?

Could it be they are weighing spending tax dollars vs. gaining campaign dollars?

In case you bought the cervical cancer being the second-leading cancer around the world line. Read that line carefully - "around the world".

Again, the Wall Street Journal, "The American Cancer Society estimates that 11,150 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,670 will die from it in the U.S. this year. That's equivalent to 0.77% of cancers diagnosed in the U.S. and 0.65% of U.S. cancer deaths each year. By comparison, the society estimates that 178,480 American women will get diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007 and 40,460 will die from it"

By lumping the U.S and underdeveloped countries around the world Merck is creating the appearance of a crisis at home; when in fact, the only real crisis is the pharmaceutical company's profit and loss margin on some of their best selling drugs. One industry watcher dubbed this aggressive campaign the "Help for Vioxx" litigation campaign.

The Progressive Independent blogged some of the most compelling arguments against the vaccine I have read to date, laying out many of the facts and examines Merck's questionable clinical trials.

Conservatives got wind of the campaign last summer when the former Republican National Committee Chairman Jack Oliver called Fran Eaton, a conservative lobbyist and family advocate, and asked her what it would take to get her to sign off on the HPV vaccine. He was calling on Merck's behalf, knowing it would alarm parental rights advocates.

After getting no where with Eaton, he began making calls around the state to other conservative leaders.

Don't you find it suspicious that Merck would funnel money into promoting legislation that would force the use of their product, rather than marketing to doctors, trusting that a good product will do well?

If this was truly a humanitarian effort, why didn't they put their efforts into developing a vaccine for boys, the carriers of the disease? Boys can carry the virus without knowing it and pass it along.

Women in Government, an organization of bi-partisan women legislators has received "unrestricted" grants from Merck, many of which have been the catalysts behind the avalanche of legislation mandating the vaccine across the country. Read more here

Contributions to WIG are promising to pay off big for Merck, the organization has even set up a special website for the project.

Of all the controversy this issue generates, the fact we have lawmakers linking arms with the pharmaceutical industry, creating a tidal wave of legislation, should send off alarms in all political camps for a multitude of reasons.

Comments

Rhonda,

Please keep up the good fight on this troubling legislation. There is no reason why Illinoisans should be required to inject their daughters with a vaccine simply because the manufacturer wants a profit on their investment. If parents want it for their daughters, the option is there. Keep it voluntary. No government should require any person to have any drug or medication.

And taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize.

Posted by Crzyldychicago on February 15, 2007 at 5:03 PM

I was in D.C. this past weekend. I was speaking with a lobbyist who works for Koch Industries but is familar with the people at Merck. This women is aggressive herself, and a very good lobbyist. She was shocked at the audacity of Merck's approach.

Pushing the HPV vaccine in a couple of states, in the first year, would make sense. At least then you could allow a couple of lawmakers to take credit for the vaccine mandate - being first on the scene is golden in politics. Instead, they pushed it everywhere and all at one. Now, every lawmaker that comes near this - regardless of the merits of such a law - looks like a shill for the pharmaceutical industry.

As for the merits of such a law, read Rhonda's post.

Posted by collinhitt on March 9, 2007 at 12:06 PM

> If this was truly a humanitarian effort,

> why didn't they put their efforts into

> developing a vaccine for boys, the carriers of

> the disease?

Uhh... because boys don't get cervical cancer maybe? Or is this too logical an answer???

> costs $360 for all three shots, while MMR

> shots cost around $42.85 per dose.

Are you familiar with the concept of 'economy of scale'? You don't get the economy, until you have scale.

Or the theoretical case of the husband who was promiscuous in his rebellious youth, but is now a conservative church-going and has always been faithful in marriage, and now through no fault of her own, HIS wife pays for his indiscretions of his youth in her 50's with cervical cancer.

And the clincher:

> I do not believe that vaccinating girls will

> give them the message that they can now be

> promiscuous.

-- R. Robinson, Jan 9, Against the wave

> vaccinating little girls against the

> devastating consequences of future promiscuity

-- ibid, a month later

I thought "mattvarbl" was being quite harsh with his comment of "asserting this argument as a thin veil of your conservative religious beliefs" in response to your Jan 9th entry on this subject, and was about to rise to your defense and urge him to take your words at face value (for that's all we have online). Then I read this follow-up.

In light of these two contradictory statements, I would urge him even stronger to take your words at face value -- but I find they don't aid in your defense, but serve to prove mattvarbl's point.

Posted by dw on April 20, 2007 at 2:57 AM

dw,

This is just about a dead horse. The fact is, politicians across the nation have seen Merck's marketing ploy for what it is--and are jumping ship.

Yes, this type of cancer is brought on by promiscuity, as you mentioned the cheating husband. Again, the vaccine for males --who carry it unknowingly--would work here.

Actually my argument is a thin veil of my old hippy days-- bottom line is that I really don't trust pharmaceutical companies.

They weigh the human cost, lawsuits, against new profits all in the course of business. Look at Vioxx or Phen-fen.

For them it is the dollar. For the government it is reaching more and more into our personal freedoms. For me, it boils down to my choice, my daughter's choices, and our doctor's recommendations.

Like the Crzyldychicago said, "Keep it voluntary."

Posted by Rhonda on April 20, 2007 at 4:35 PM