Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?

The question of whether one's daughter should take the HPV injection is an attempt at simplifying an issue with several, complex dimensions. After reading the array of articles and information available about cervical cancer and the HPV virus, it's difficult for me to determine a solid response to the question, but with all the scepticism that surrounds the matter, would Ireally allow my hypothetical, 10 year old daughter to take a drug, whose effects she wouldn’t understand, and whose consequences, have not been thoroughly tested? Most definitely not. Not yet anyway.

To summarize the facts, according to Merck Frosst, the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the whole ordeal, 1 Canadian woman dies each day of the year from cervical cancer. The injection, known as Gardasil is supposed to prevent 4 of the approximate 200 strains of the Human Papilloma Virus. HPV-16, a target of the injection is found in 50% of all cervical cancer, thus, an injection that suggests the prevention of the second or third most prevalent cancers among women (after breast) seems too good to be true. Is it?

As many of the comments written in response the article stated, it is important to do your own research. I asked myself how reliable Merck Frosst is, and I ended up finding out some interesting information.

Merck introduced a drug called Vioxx, which was prescribed to deal with the pain of arthritis, in 1999. Soon after, in September,2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market. Why? In that time span, it was linked to 28,000 deaths involving an increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular complications. Furthermore, over 80 million people were prescribed the drug, with confidence, yet even the FDA, who fast tracked the licensing of Gardasil didn't have complete confidence in it. Steven Galson, the acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation & Research said, "this is not a total surprise," in regards to the withdrawal of Vioxx in late 2004. In 2001, Vioxx was labelled with a warning about heart risks, yet the drug was still licensed by the FDA in less than 4 months. Sound suspicious? It should.

The legitimacy of Merck is also questioned specifically in the state of Texas. In early 2007, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas mandated the vaccination of young girls with the vaccine sold by Merck. Why would this be of any suspicion you ask? What if you knew that a lobbyist of Merck served as the governor's chief of staff? In summary, an advisor to the governor now works for Merck, the drug company that provided funding to the campaign of the governor, who essentially used his despotic power to mandate, without practically any public debate, the mass vaccination of young girls. What does this mean exactly? Beginning in September 2008, Texan girls in the sixth grade will have to receive injections of Gardasil. This means billions in profits for Merck. Actually, to be more specific, at $360-$400 a course, Merck will make an estimated $3.2 billion by 2010.

The issue at hand here is complicated enough without paying too much attention on the Gardasil debacle in the United States, thus, let's focus on the issue here in Canada. The article states that "Over the next few weeks, however, girls in specific grades will be offered the drug for free – with parental consent – in the rest of Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland,” but why can other provinces, like BC wait another year? Furthermore, why do parents have only a few days to decide whether or not their daughter should get the vaccine? What is the penalty for taking more time to decide? About $400, which is not guaranteed to be covered by all insurance companies. Not only that, but as seen with Vioxx, the consequences could be much more devastating.

Fortunately, it's not all bad. On its website, Merck does mention its significant accomplishments, like that of Singular, which treats asthma patients in over 75 countries. SINGULAIR® received the Prix Galien Canada 2000 Innovative Product in 2000, and its developers also received an award for its success, but with all the cynicism surrounding Gardasil, a couple of meagre awards hardly seem like enough leverage to convince me that Merck is a reliable company, devoted purely to the well being of society. Is its true objective to sincerely protect the lives of potentially millions of women in the world or does it have ulterior motives? Do the benefits truly outweigh the risks? I think there is enough information available to be able to respond with a "no," but that doesn't mean that through more research, and by taking more time to test its products, Merck cannot prove disbelievers wrong.

With that being said, it seems as though the great Dionysus Cato said it best when he stated, "Patience is the greatest of all virtues." Why not wait until we are positive the benefits completely outweigh the risks?

...And until then, as ludicrous an idea as it may sound, why not practice the of art abstinence?