In article <2923401.qejiahHWFe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Merck Funds Friends, Gets Benefits
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | After receiving six-figure grants from the pharmaceutical company Merck,
> | three medical associations promoted the company's Gardasil vaccine, "using
> | virtually the same strategy that Merck employed in its marketing campaign."
> | That's according to an analysis published in the Journal of the American
> | Medical Association, which warned that Gardasil's marketing campaign
> | presents "important challenges to physician practice and medical
> | professionalism."
> `----
That's a bit misleading. Here's the note from the JAMA:
The new vaccine against 4 types of human papillomavirus (HPV),
Gardasil, like other immunizations appears to be a cost-effective
intervention with the potential to enhance both adolescent health
and the quality of their adult lives. However, the messages and the
methods by which the vaccine was marketed present important
challenges to physician practice and medical professionalism. By
making the vaccine's target disease cervical cancer, the sexual
transmission of HPV was minimized, the threat of cervical cancer to
adolescents was maximized, and the subpopulations most at risk
practically ignored. The vaccine manufacturer also provided
educational grants to professional medical associations (PMAs)
concerned with adolescent and women's health and oncology. The
funding encouraged many PMAs to create educational programs and
product-specific speakers' bureaus to promote vaccine use. However,
much of the material did not address the full complexity of the
issues surrounding the vaccine and did not provide balanced
recommendations on risks and benefits. As important and appropriate
as it is for PMAs to advocate for vaccination as a public good,
their recommendations must be consistent with appropriate and
cost-effective use.
Note that the issue here is that they are not promoting the best use,
from an overall medical point of view, of the vaccine. The promotion is
focusing on the cervical cancer aspect, rather than the sexually
transmitted disease aspect, of HPV.
The reason for this is that the STD aspect is a political hot potato.
Cervical cancer is not. A couple of states in the US, for instance, have
proposed adding HPV vaccination to the standard set of vaccinations for
school kids. That caused an uproar among parents who said vaccinating
against an STD would encourage promiscuity among the kids.
Those parents were being idiotic, of course--they are assuming that
there are kids who would be having sex, and are only holding back
because they fear HPV. I doubt there are any such kids.
Idiotic or not, the parents fear is real, and that translates into a
problem for any politician trying to promote vaccinating against HPV.
Hence, the need to deemphasize the STD aspect of HPV, and emphasize the
politically safer cervical cancer aspect, in order to get the vaccine
accepted.
The real puzzle, though, is why you think this has something to do with
Linux.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
