Don't say I didn't warn you ahead of time we were going to hit this pothole on the cervical cancer vaccine road. To briefly recap, last month I noticed Merck was running a television PSA, Tell Someone, in an attempt raise awareness about the virus that can lead to cervical cancer. Not once did it mention anything about the cervical cancer vaccine Merck was hoping to win FDA approval for -- and the same cervical cancer vaccine that will be available as early as next month. Let's remember this vaccine works best if administered to girls before they become sexually active. I mused that this was an intentional preemptive move on the part of Merck to the inevitable resistance from the Christian-right and other religious groups over a vaccine associated with sexual activity. I predicted it was going to be a controversial issue and debate where sexual activity of teenage girls became the focal point and not the potentially life-saving cancer prevention vaccine. I was betting that the awareness-raising ad campaign from the drug company in the virus link to cervical cancer was an attempt to minimize the debate with an educational approach.
Sure enough, today I ran across a Reuters news article reporting just such an admission on the part of the drug company and discussion we will call the big bump in the road. Merck admits that its educational PSA was an effort to win over the Christian Right to the benefits of a vaccine to prevent cancer. Hang on to your seat -- we are coming up to the pothole. Merck has revealed its plans to push for the vaccine as mandatory to school admission.
This is where the opposition from the Christian-right becomes more of an abyss than a pothole. The Christian Right feels the cervical cancer vaccine will lead to promiscuity and a false sense of security. Evangelical Christian groups, such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, believe that it should be left up to parents to decide if their daughters are protected against cervical cancer by way of a vaccine. It's all about sex. It's all about the religious philosophies concerning sexual activity and eventually -- and sadly -- little to do with saving lives or preventing cancer.











1. Dalene, thanks for following this issue. It's quite depressing that misguided faith would get in the way of hard science, particularly in this case. As I noted in refering to your posting at allspinzone.com, the same groups decrying the sexual aspect of this vaccine would be the first to bash a Jehovah's Witness parent for not allowing a blood transfusion in a dying child who needed one.
It's hard for me to fathom sometimes that in the U.S., we're supposedly the world's most advance and socially aware civilization, yet we give outfits like the FRC the same medical weight as years of clinical trials and approvals.
As far as I'm concerned, it's on FRC if even ONE young lady eventually dies from this disease that could have been easily prevented.
Again, thanks...
Posted at 6:37PM on Jun 13th 2006 by Richard Cranium