A client sent me a December 2007 article that I somehow missed during my intensive look at the dangers of HPV (which are serious) and the possible value of vaccination with Merck's Gardasil. You may recall that many of my posts questioned Merck's heavy-handed marketing and lobbying strategies. [Those earlier posts may be read here.]
Parents with teenage daughters may wish to review this article prior to decision-making on whether or not to ask their family doctor to vaccinate with Gardasil. Frank Strehl, "Gardasil: pros and cons," Original Internist, December 2007, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDL/is_4_14/ai_n24354801/?tag=content;col1>, <http://tinyurl.com/mn4gm6> (Accessed August 11, 2009)
Jeanne,
I notice the author introduces his article with the question: "Would you break from the profession's tradition of opposing vaccinations and recommend this potentially life-saving vaccine for your patients and their daughters?" This indicates that he normally opposes any type of vaccination, and was only considering Gardasil as an exception to his general opposition. The author is a DC (Doctor of Chiropractic) and as he notes, his profession has generally opposed vaccinations. I suggest getting a second opinion.
Posted by: Kent Weichmann | 08/11/2009 at 09:21 AM
Kent,
Thank you for your comment. You raise a good point. One must always question the reliability of information obtained on the Internet. My earlier posts, however, raised substantial questions about Merck's extraordinary lobbying to get states to enact mandatory vaccination laws and about Merck's intensive advertising. Merck wanted to corner the market before another company was able to get FDA approval of a competing vaccination.
My earlier posts about Gardasil can be found here. http://tinyurl.com/kn4d6r
Jeanne
Posted by: Jeanne M Hannah | 08/11/2009 at 11:54 AM