Envisioning 2.0

A couple of weeks ago, I reported on a state-focused lobbying campaign Merck initiated to encourage legislators and other officials to require use of its cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil. At the time I suggested that Merck tread carefully as it risked drawing fire from critics who may charge that the campaign is a self serving attempt to increase revenues for its product.

It looks like Merck was paying close attention to the firestorm it generated by encouraging mandatory use of Gardasil. Earlier this week, the company announced that it would halt its lobbying campaign. According to the New York Times, Merck “acted after hearing from public health officials and medical organizations that its campaign was counterproductive.”

Jim Edwards, who writes the blog BrandweekNRx ( and is a senior editor for Brand Week), says that Merck’s decision “is a significant victory for the anti-science/pro-cancer crowd.” He doesn’t understand why the “pro-family people . . . want to get their daughters to get STDs and die of cancer.”

I disagree with Edwards. I think Merck recognized that the overall poor reputation of the pharmaceutical industry coupled with charges its lobbying efforts weren’t designed to aid public health made pushing for mandatory vaccination was a bad move. In addition, should Merck’s vaccine turn out to have some nasty, previously unknown side effects (see Vioxx) it could be in a lot of trouble. No, better to wait and take the high road. Good call Merck.

P.S.: See the comments section in my original post on Gardasil for an intriguing debate on the pros and cons of the vaccine.

This entry was posted on February 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm and is filed under The Pharmaceutical Industry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.