New uber expensive cancer drugs like Taxol, Tarceva (the price was increased because it worked better than expected) Avastin, (at a cost of $100,000 for a year in 2006) , and Herceptin (costing $NZ100.000 for a year in 2007), have one thing in common with Gardasil.
Gardasil wasn’t priced the way vaccines normally are. In concert with the manner in which price is set for cancer drugs, Gardasil was priced the same way :
“We based the price on a number of factors, most importantly the value Gardasil brings to individuals and society,” says Jennifer Allen, a spokesperson for Merck.
According to Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann, of Genentech, Avastin's price was worked out from what they considered to be "the value of innovation, and the value of new therapies."
Why is this? Because drug and vaccine manufacturers realise that the bigger the fear factor the larger the price tag they can put on a product.
“How much is your life worth to you? If it’s worth it, you’ll find the money to pay for it, even if you go broke.”
But there is something more. There are quite a slew of new cancer vaccines silently sitting in the wings. The companies are quietly watching, because Gardasil is a “trial run”.
Merck has thrown huge marketting money, and rolled out a massive vaccine propaganda machine to market Gardasil:
The lightning-fast transition from newly minted vaccine to must-have injection in the United States and Europe represents a triumph of what the manufacturers call education and their critics call marketing. Hundreds of doctors were recruited and trained to give talk.
As Diana Harper who worked at Merck put it, “Merck lobbied every opinion leader, women’s group, medical society, politicians, and went directly to the people — it created a sense of panic that says you have to have this vaccine now.”
Merck swept the 2008 Pharmaceutical Advertising and Marketing Excellence awards, and Gardasil was named Brand of the Year by Pharmaceutical Executive magazine.
That doesn’t happen with “standard” vaccines.
In this country, money was shelled out to get a group of girls at AUT in Auckland, to design a pink Gardasil website, along with various other very “pretty” looking TV and magazine advertisements. Worse still, Radio Sport ran serial saccharine-voiced ads during the cricket commentaries, which were enough to promote serial diarrhea and vomiting worse than that inspired by Giardia.
Not all doctors have agreed with the marketing plan. JAMA had an article with a few tetchy comments in August 2009.
What other vaccine in recent history, has been so relentless pushed up both nostrils, and into the eyes and ears of people other than Gardasil?
Right from the start, huge money has been poured into HUNDREDS of studies analysing the attitudes and intentions of women, men, adolescents, medical people etc, in just about every meaningful country in the world.
If you don’t believe me, do a pubmed search.
To shorten your agony, just go to VACCINE magazine, and look at the contents lists for the last year.
Not only will you see many of these studies, but at least three about different novel DNA HPV vaccines as well. Wouldn’t you think two types were enough?
In comparison to the gazillions of dollars spent on market research, opinion noting, and politician wheedling, how many studies did you find actually LOOKING at vaccine damaged children? Articles on different new HPV vaccines outstrip anything on side effects case histories.
It's all about marketting and "innovation" and little about real people. The situation is ludicrous. Sorry. Wrong word. Lucrative.
I don’t mean side effects studies looking at what everyone else thinks are actual side effects or not, but actually presenting case histories of kids who had vaccine reactions, looking at bloodwork, immunology and serious discussion. They would say there is no discussion because there are no serious side effects. In VACCINE, in 2009, I found two case studies. A case of Immune thrombocytopenia and two girls who suffered Lipotrophy. Good start. But not enough.
Little attention is being paid to serious side effects, but HUGE attention is being paid to what people think about Gardasil, and whether or not they intend to have the Gardasil series.
Merck knows that attitude and perception are everything, and the battle is won in the minds of the majority. So long as the majority never get to hear about the minority who really suffer from vaccines, Merck feel they will have achieved their aim.
An “In press” innocent looking article in Vaccine has analysed the opinions about Gardasil in terms of what’s this vaccine worth, which reeks of the sort of “how much money would you fork out to be guaranteed NOT to get cervical cancer?” mentality of cancer drug makers. (As if any such guarantee can be given!)
No the study isn’t funded by Merck. It’s funded by CDC. Whether the money from CDC actually comes from Merck is unknown. Perhaps the new head of Merck Vaccines, who was the head of CDC, Dr Julie Gerberding would know the answer to that.
This article is important because this sort of research underpins not just how the new cancer drug prices are fixed, but it's the new trend for vaccines too. If it’s worth it to you, not to die at some point, you will pay whatever the cost.
With new cancer vaccines waiting in the wings until the dust is settled over Gardasil, I'm pretty sure they too will be priced on the basis of what you will be prepared to fork out, in order NOT TO BE SCARED OF CANCER. Fear has always been the greatest propaganda weapon in the history of mankind.
Never before have manufacturers fleeced fear so blatantly, or blandly, as Avastin’s manufacturers put it… the price (and value) of “innovation”. Men are the next money target.
Gardasil is the new cure for penile warts, so men are going to be line up too.
After Gardasil?
Three prostate cancer vaccines are just waiting to have their prices fixed.
What’s it worth to you, men, for a guarantee not to get prostate cancer, if such a promise is possible? $1,000?
Place your bid now.
The makers of Provenge, DCVax and Gvax would like to know, so they can work out what you will pay for their new vaccines.
