SCIENTIST: How Much Should Gardasil Cost? Merck could cut the price of its new vaccine by 90% and still do very well.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53410/

A sneaky virus has infected 20 million Americans. For most, it's just
an inconvenience, causing unattractive lesions. But for some, the
infection leads to cancer, killing 250,000 people worldwide and
costing billions in medical expenses every year. The vast majority of
people who develop the cancer live in low-income countries, where it
has become the most common type of cancer in women. After years of
research, a company has released a vaccine that prevents nearly 100%
of infections by the four forms of the virus that cause most of its
problems. The question is: How much should such a life-saving vaccine
cost?


Most of you probably realize that I'm talking about Gardasil, which
Merck developed and the US Food and Drug Administration approved last
year. The vaccine targets human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause
genital warts and, eventually, cervical cancer. Given the impact HPV
has on sexually active people worldwide, it would appear that no price
is too high ? unless it's priced out of reach of millions of women,
which it does.


At $360 for a three-dose regimen, not including administration costs,
the vaccine is incredibly expensive, especially for women in
developing countries. Insurance companies, moreover, have balked at
covering the full cost of the vaccine, some reimbursing as little as
$2 per dose. Merck suffered mightily from the safety issues associated
with Vioxx and other similar drugs, and Gardasil won't become a
blockbuster drug if it is an elective intervention. But can't Gardasil
make money for Merck without a prohibitively high price?


Merck dedicated more than 20 years to Gardasil, and a 1998 report
estimated that companies spend $250 million developing a vaccine.
Merck sold $365 million worth of the vaccine in the first quarter of
2007, and that's before some states have mandated it for all young
girls, something many are considering. To that end, Merck lobbies the
offices of governors and other legislators, arguing that Gardasil
saves regions money by reducing the long-term cost of treating
HPV-related illnesses. In short, pay now, save later.


According to Jennifer Allen, a Merck spokesperson, the company
calculated the price based on both the cost of R&D and what the
vaccine could save in HPV-related treatment costs, which she estimated
at $5 billion per year for just the four strains targeted by the
vaccine. But a Canadian report from the British Columbia Cancer Agency
that compared the cost versus savings of HPV vaccination in the
province through 2031 disagreed with Merck's calculations. This report
found that the cost of vaccination greatly outweighs the amount saved
by avoiding treatment of HPV-related disease, and an HPV vaccination
program only "breaks even" when the price of vaccination dropped to
$60 (CAN) per individual (roughly $55 US).


Does Merck really need to charge $360 per dose to earn back what
they've spent on developing it? The company estimates its net income
for 2006 at nearly $4.5 billion. If they sold Gardasil for 1/10th its
current price, assuming the number of units sold stays relatively
steady, the company would have $36.5 million in sales each quarter, or
$146 million each year, from that product alone. A few more months,
and they could recoup their development cost, and start making up for
the funds wasted on researching vaccines that didn't make it to
market.


It's hypocritical for Merck to argue to legislators that Gardasil is
an essential tool for public health, and then raise the price to a
level that most women can't afford ? especially those outside the
United States who are most hard-hit by cervical cancer. Since 1998,
Merck has spent about $48 million on lobbying, according to the Center
for Public Integrity. If the company can afford to spend huge amounts
convincing legislators the vaccine is something every woman deserves,
it can afford to take its own advice, and reduce the price.


Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at
Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed
Chair in Medical Ethics

copyrighted material deleted

There is no question that pharmaceutical companies tend to inflate the
costs of development that they report. And here, they seemed to have
inflated the costs of the diseases that the vaccine prevents.

Nonetheless, we're not going to settle the question of how much profit
the company should make. One thing not mentioned is that the company
took on considerable risk. If another company comes up with a better
vaccine, that other company will end up with most of the business.

Quite frankly, I don't know the answer to how much the company should
charge. Clearly, they have a right to make back the costs of development
of the vaccine, but how much profit they should be allowed to make is
another question.

The charge of $360 seems a tab bit high, but reasonable.

I just hope the company begins marketing the vaccine in developing
countries for a lot less.

Jeff

This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

In the United States, already seven deaths (as young as 11 and 12)
have been reported. All occured soon after their Gardasil vaccination.
Others have developed a serious, painful autoimmune disorder known as
Guillain-Barre Syndrome.Scores have reported potentially permanent
disability. These numbers are current only as to July, 2007.

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

Ilena Rose wrote:
This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

Can you give some examples?

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

Can you give some examples of the freelancers? Or did you make this up?

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Well, there are few problems with the vaccine.

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications."

Yet none of the deaths that have happened after this vaccine was given
was shown to be related to the vaccine.

And the side effects are usually mild, like swelling. (Gee, risk a
little swelling or cancer later. Which way to go?)

The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

Prove it was not coincidence.

In the United States, already seven deaths (as young as 11 and 12)
have been reported. All occured soon after their Gardasil vaccination.

Yet none has been shown to be caused by the vaccine.

Others have developed a serious, painful autoimmune disorder known as
Guillain-Barre Syndrome.Scores have reported potentially permanent
disability. These numbers are current only as to July, 2007.

And how many of these have been shown to be caused by the vaccine?

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2

Please note: An adverse report only means something bad happened after
someone got a vaccination(s). It does not mean that the vaccine caused
the problems.

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.

Really? Where did Merck lapse in its reports?

Jeff

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

On Aug 21, 6:24 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

I'm sure people are sick to death of having to see logic pointed
out.....but one more time for logics sake: If thinning of blood is
associated with a vaccine......how do you rationalize blamed the same
vaccine for a death from a blood clot ??????

The world is waiting with baited breath to hear, Ilena Rosenthal.

Coleah wrote:
On Aug 21, 6:24 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

I'm sure people are sick to death of having to see logic pointed
out.....but one more time for logics sake: If thinning of blood is
associated with a vaccine......how do you rationalize blamed the same
vaccine for a death from a blood clot ??????

The world is waiting with baited breath to hear, Ilena Rosenthal.

Ilena and Logic? Let's just say the words don't go together like peanut
butter and jelly or lox and bagels, IMHO.

however, I hear Ilena is going to go on the Sunday news show circuit and
soon the David and Jay's late night shows. And PBS is planning making a
documentary about her. ;-)

Jeff

This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

In the United States, already seven deaths (as young as 11 and 12)
have been reported. All occured soon after their Gardasil vaccination.
Others have developed a serious, painful autoimmune disorder known as
Guillain-Barre Syndrome.Scores have reported potentially permanent
disability. These numbers are current only as to July, 2007.

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

On Aug 21, 8:10 pm, Jeff wrote:
Coleah wrote:
On Aug 21, 6:24 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

I'm sure people are sick to death of having to see logic pointed
out.....but one more time for logics sake: If thinning of blood is
associated with a vaccine......how do you rationalize blamed the same
vaccine for a death from a blood clot ??????

The world is waiting with baited breath to hear, Ilena Rosenthal.

Ilena and Logic? Let's just say the words don't go together like peanut
butter and jelly or lox and bagels, IMHO.

however, I hear Ilena is going to go on the Sunday news show circuit and
soon the David and Jay's late night shows. And PBS is planning making a
documentary about her. ;-)

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Jerry Springer Show was interested in having her on to do a face
to face confront with all of her "Mine Enemies". The show would have
gone bankrupt with the travel expense for all those people and the
studio was too small to handle them all.

On Aug 21, 4:18 pm, Jeff wrote:
copyrighted material deleted

There is no question that pharmaceutical companies tend to inflate the
costs of development that they report. And here, they seemed to have
inflated the costs of the diseases that the vaccine prevents.

Nonetheless, we're not going to settle the question of how much profit
the company should make. One thing not mentioned is that the company
took on considerable risk. If another company comes up with a better
vaccine, that other company will end up with most of the business.

Quite frankly, I don't know the answer to how much the company should
charge. Clearly, they have a right to make back the costs of development
of the vaccine, but how much profit they should be allowed to make is
another question.

The charge of $360 seems a tab bit high, but reasonable.

I just hope the company begins marketing the vaccine in developing
countries for a lot less.

Jeff


Your thoughts mirror my own Jeff. I'd like to see the vaccine
affordable. However, if you think $360.00 is high, try the cost of
treating HPV, and costs associated with Cervical Cancer.

Although I am 100% against mandatory vaccination of the Gardasil
vaccine at this time. I can understand it may be one way to have the
government pick up the tab. But at the end of the day, we all pay for
the vaccine. Either directly at the doctor's office, through health
care premiums, or increased taxes of the citizens to pay for mandated
programs.

One article I read, "hinted" that in developing countries, they are
hoping to find a less expensive version of the vaccine. . .I certainly
do hope if that happens, it's safe!

250,000 women die globally from Cervical Cancer. It has been
estimated that 70% of those cancer cases are caused by the HPV virus,
which could be prevented by Gardasil. I'm really keeping my fingers
crossed with this vaccine! It could be a godsend!

The numbers of people that could be protected from genital warts
(including men), and other HPV related illnesses, must be astronomical
- if known. Afterall, far more individuals are treated and made ill
by HPV related issues, than ever die from Cervical Cancer! Because,
as Ilena Rosenthal says, "HPV is 'treatable'."

This article made some excellent points.

Another important number not yet disclosed is the "public relations"
dollars added to the lobbying budget (declared to be only $48 million
dollars).

Publicists (aka flacks, shills, anonymous and named) are everywhere on
the internet repeating Merck's propganda almost verbatim. Usenet and
blogs are filled with them.

A WikiScanner search revealed official Merck computers in several
countries posted around 2,000 entries on Wikipedia. And many more are
freelancers.

How much of the $360 spent for this unproven drug is also paying for
the untold hundreds of hours on Wikipedia and Usenet and the blogworld
defending Merck and distracting from the problems emerging?

Mounting deaths and injuries are downplayed as mere "side effects" and
"complications." The death of a young woman from a blood clot three
hours after her jab, in MerckSpeak is just "coincidence."

In the United States, already seven deaths (as young as 11 and 12)
have been reported. All occured soon after their Gardasil vaccination.
Others have developed a serious, painful autoimmune disorder known as
Guillain-Barre Syndrome.Scores have reported potentially permanent
disability. These numbers are current only as to July, 2007.

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com