All across the country public officials and legislatures are falling over themselves in an attempt to fund a new vaccines for girls as young as 9 to prevent 70% of the HPV viruses that leads to cervical cancer and 4,000 deaths a year. The drug has only been approved for less than a year, and
the data Merck presented to the FDA were based on some 21,000 test subjects between ages 16 and 26
.
Why haven't any of the major news organizations reported tha the lead HPV researcher for Merck thinks that it is not only "silly" but that
"giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment," said Diane M. Harper, who is a scientist, physician, professor and the director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.
Are the drug companies using the same fear based marketing that the current administration is? When you hear that 80% of women have had HPV infection by age 50, they often fail to tell you that nearly all of them fight it off on their own. Many people get colds but that doesn't mean that everyone who gets a cold will die of pneumonia either. Are they co-opting women legislatures
WIG is a good group, Harper said. They have good intentions, she said. But, they are misguided in their mission to mandate this vaccine for little girls in their home states.
to move their profits? Are they just reaping the benefits of lobbyists? In Texas, the Governor attempted to mandate it for 6th grade girls after his chief of staff went to work for Merck.
Cervical cancer is similar to skin cancer as it takes years and years to develop from pre-cancerous changes to cancer and nearly everyone who gets the infection can clear it. We all want to find a cure for cancer but why spend so much on one small population? Especially one that is so very easy to diagnosed and treatable when removed early (like most skin cancers).
According to the CDC 50% of the cases are in women who have never had a Pap test and another 10% are in women who haven't had one in 3 years so recent immigrants (Vietnamese have five times and Hispanic women twice the rate of other groups), rural women, and those with limited access to health care. You can assume that the same women who don't get pap smears or mamograms or who immigrated to the US as adults (nearly 1 in 10 people)won't be protected either.
Of the remaining 50% who do get the vaccine it only protects against 2 of the strains that cause 70% of the cancer. None of the states so far have included any money for outreach to under-served populations nor for the treatment of cancer for women who currently have it.
For an actual case study lets look at Washington.
Church said they estimate they can purchase 143,000 doses, which should be enough to vaccinate 47,000 girls the first year
as young as 11 for $13,000,000 in this year's budget (2 year cycle)
The state only has 210 cases a year and 60 deaths. Of those 60 deaths, we can assume half didn't get preventive health care like pap tests so they also represent women in the future who wont have gotten the vaccine. Of the remaining 30 women only 70% will have been protected. So we will hopefully save 21 women at a cost of 20 million. Should we spend $165,000 per person to prevent cervical cancer in 20 women?
Each life is of course priceless but we do economic calculations all the time in terms of health care rationing by denying children health coverage. 400,000 women a year die prematurely from heart disease but you don't seem legislatures rushing to spend money on prevention programs but a drug that might pay off in 25 years.. they can't get in line fast enough. So how do I, a female, liberal democrat oppose a popular multi-million dollar program that might save some women's lives?