The Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog

In 1999 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast tracked a new drug on its way to the market. Produced by pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., it was a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug popularly known as Vioxx. Within five years, the drug was withdrawn from the market. Vioxx’s short life was due to several unfortunate long-term side effects, including kidney disease, heart arrhythmia, and cardiovascular disease. (http://www.cox2drugreview.org/) The FDA reported that in its five years, it caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, almost half of which were fatal.

At present, Merck & Co. has developed another drug which has received the same welcome as Vioxx. The new drug, Gardasil, is meant to vaccinate girls and women against certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), two of which can lead to cervical cancer. A complete vaccination consists of three injections. The drug’s potential protection against one cause of cervical cancer has resulted in widespread media praise. It is commonly described as a “cervical cancer vaccine,” which suggests that it is even possible to vaccinate against cancer. This factually errant praise also automatically detracts from, in public opinion, the credibility of any dissent. Opposition has been largely attributed to “conservative religious groups.”

The FDA approved Gardasil with a recommendation of “universal use” for all pre-adolescent girls. This has been taken as an excuse for states to mandate the drug, as is evident in daily headlines. The media has proved somewhat slanted in favor of the drug, providing little coverage for objecting medical groups. Thus far, organizations such as the Texas Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine have come out publicly against mandatory vaccination.

The reasoning of these medical associations is clear. They are not opposed to medical progress, and certainly support all efforts to combat life-threatening diseases. The problem, as these organizations see it, lies in the fact that the drug only went through three and a half years of testing, leaving the medical community somewhat in the dark as to what serious adverse effects might result in the long term. Currently reported effects in several test-subjects have been written off by both Merck and the FDA, but only time will tell whether those same problems will become more widespread. These include severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision, slurred speech, fainting, involuntary contraction of limbs (seizures), muscle weakness, tingling and numbness in the hands and feet and joint pain.

Along with the potential of serious adverse effects is the question of efficacy. There is evidence that after approximately four years, the vaccine’s potency significantly declines. The long-term value of the vaccine has yet to be determined; if it wears off within six years, will girls and women need to repeat the battery of injections they originally received?

Furthermore, the clinical trials of Gardasil were not merely incomplete in regards to time, but in content as well. Young children receive several inoculations before entering school. These protect them against everything from mumps to chicken pox to hepatitis. Yet Merck only tested its HPV vaccine with the hepatitis B vaccine. While these two drugs were demonstrated not to conflict with one another, there are no clinical data concerning Gardasil’s relationship with other common drugs.

Mandating this drug would undoubtedly be a mistake. It is negligible to require any person, especially a child, to receive a treatment which might in the future prove to be dangerous. Before compelling young girls and women to be vaccinated, states should demand further clinical testing. It is pertinent to note that by mandating a vaccine, the state assumes all liability. If it causes harm to patients, to whatever extent, Merck is immune to legal retribution. No state ought to be so ethically or fiscally irresponsible as to mandate this vaccine.