HPV Vaccine | Marketing hype or effective protection?

Regular readers know that I have frequently blogged on the topic of Gardasil, Merck's HPV vaccine.

The New York Times today (August 20, 2008) published an in-depth article examining the manner in which Merck has marketed the drug and the controversies surrounding Merck's efforts. Merck calls the efforts "education," but critics call it marketing. This article is certainly worth reading by all parents of teenage girls. The New York Times article can be accessed here. Drug Makers’ Push Leads to Cancer Vaccines’ Fast Rise

My Blog article "Human papillomavirus (HPV) is more prevalent than we thought" provides statistics and links to my other collected writings on the topic of Gardasil.

For further reading, The Evidence Gap is a the New York Times' series that explores medical treatments in use despite scant proof they work and discusses steps toward more consistent use of evidence-based medicine.

Comments

[A]

Hi, Jeanne, thank you for your very informative site. I look forward to your new blogs and articles. I saw your comments on the HPV vaccine and wanted to mention an interesting fact: USCIS/DHS has recently begun to require potential immigrants to receive this vaccine as a condition of their immigration. You can obtain more information about this requirement on the website of USCIS (e.g., the press room tab).

[Jeanne M Hannah]

A,

A: Thank you for your comment. I am not aware that vaccination after exposure to HPV or after contracting HPV will do anything for a person! If there is no benefit (no protection), then how can potential immigrants benefit and how can the U.S. taxpayer benefit? Doesn't the U.S. taxpayer ultimately pay for this through CHS services? Is this program just a result of Merck hype?

Just asking.