NVIC - National Vaccine Information Center

I support Bill Richardson's decision to veto Gardasil legislation

Yesterday Bill Richardson vetoed legislation that would have made Gardasil vaccination of 6 year-old girls compulsory. Here's the story :

"While everyone recognizes the benefits of this vaccine, there is insufficient time to educate parents, schools and health care providers," he said.

The measure would have taken effect June 15, requiring girls entering sixth grade this fall to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, before they enter public or private school.

The bill would have allowed parents to opt out of the vaccination requirement.

Merck, the company that produces Gardasil, needed a homerun drug after the legal mess and PR nightmare of the Vioxx cases. The company lost a $235 million lawsuit for knowingly suppressing documentation about the potential lethal cardiovascular effects of Vioxx and for "tweaking" clinical studies evidence to support their false claims of safety.

The company knew as far back as 2000 the painkillers could kill people with cardiovascular problems but it took them a warning from the FDA, requests for new trials by American Heart Association, the National Stroke Association, the Arthritis Foundation and 4,000 lawsuits for the company to conduct another round of clinical trials that would further the minimum of testing they submitted to the FDA in order to get their drug approved.

On September 30, 2004 Merck finally pulled the drug off the market after the second round of trials did confirm Vioxx was not safe. In 2005 they lost the landmark Ernst v. Merck product liability case --which granted a record $253 million in damages to the plaintiff. The company's stock fell almost 8% minutes after the verdict and, given the drug accounted for 10% of the company's revenue, Merck has been losing since 2004 a record $2.5 billion annually in revenue.


liza's picture

| | | | | | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1953 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

They dance and strip for free while some jerk-off makes a fortune selling videos of them. Looking dumbfounded when she learned that the girls don't get paid for their exposure, Oprah remarked, "Okay, that really is stupid." No kidding.

But, wait! It gets worse. It is not just that women are exploiting their bodies "for free", they are forking out tons of money to look like all the women they see on television. Oprah had four teenagers from Florida on the show. These young girls spend thousands of dollars to imitate celebrity styles and one is already planning on getting breast implants. Are these young women just a rare exception? Come on. Who hasn't spent a ridiculous amount of money on highlights, or bikini waxes, or some other please-make-me-be-sexy type thing?

We are literally buying into our oppression. People are profiting off the exploitation of girls and women, and then taking our money as we each try to add up to the narrow formula of sexy that bombards us.


— Polly Jones, blogger
Marginal Notes: Stupid Girls, Big Bucks


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify