PDA

View Full Version : REMOCRACY: An open letter to "Merck-y" Governor Bill Richardson


Kristofer D. Dale
03-27-2007, 01:16 PM
---

Item:

New Mexico is on the verge of becoming the latest state
to require sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against a
sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer,
a spokesman for the governor said Monday.

"It's a public health issue, and I believe it's an important
step," Richardson said Monday. "New Mexico has always been
progressive on these issues. ... We've got to find ways for
young women to be protected."

While federal regulators have approved the vaccine, the
issue of making it a requirement for girls has been
surrounded by controversy.

Merck & Co., the vaccine's maker, said last month that it
would suspend a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to get
states to require it for school-age girls because of
pressure from parents and medical groups.

from http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/C/CANCER_VACCINE_NM?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

---

Item:

John Edwards said Thursday that his wife is now battling an
incurable reappearance of cancer but vowed to continue his
second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a rival for the nomination,
said he and his wife offered their prayers, and in a
telephone call to The Associated Press, said: "If there is
one message here, it should be that we should all redouble
our efforts to lick that deadly disease."

from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

---

Dear Governor Richardson,

These are noble words indeed from a man who, as Secretary
of Energy, was content to sit back during the botched attempt
to hang serious national security problems at LANL that have
continued to this day on a Chinese-American scientist named
Wen Ho Lee. I recall that Judge Parker felt it was necessary to
issue a public apology for that fiasco. Ever the opportunist, we
now see that you have decided to jump on the cancer bandwagon
despite the fact that the University of New Mexico is still stone-
walling the legitimate development of the vitaletheine immune
modulator technology fraudulently discredited and co-opted by
UNM, its former licensee, Floyd E. Taub, and/or the USPTO.

If you, Governor Richardson, are truly as concerned as you claim,
perhaps you will immediately look into the many murky reasons
why this non-toxic method of stimulating the immune system,
to treat not only cancer but an entire range of immune
and regulatory diseases, has languished under the auspices
of UNM for nearly the entire patent life of these
scientifically-published compounds. Is your publically demonstrated
resolve firm enough to actually get you out of bed with Merck
and begin protecting and promoting the health and livelihoods
of the citizens you allegedly serve? Time will tell, but if you do
decide to expedite the development of this cancer treatment for the
"surviving" Americans who funded the initial research through an NIH
grant, you might just be able to pull off your bid for the presidency.
All you have to do is pick up the phone and tell UNM to honestly
develop the authentic discoveries or honor its contract with
the Inventors as per its 1983 Patent Policy and return the
undeveloped technology to researchers Galen Knight and
Terence Scallen at no additional cost to these inventors.

The inventors can take it from there, and you, Governor
Richardson, can take the credit for making it finally happen.
Who knows, once cancer has been vanquished, perhaps as
President you could then do something about the cancer of
political corruption that prevents good things like cures for
cancer from being developed in a timely manner in our home
state of New Mexico, to the great benefit of the rest of the nation.
DEmocracy obviously isn't working any more. Perhaps we need
some REmocracy for a change, as in REaffirming, REestablishing,
and REvitalizing our political system!

Sincerely,

Kristofer D. Dale

Pookie
03-28-2007, 06:49 PM
Cancer is a personal tragedy to the person who has it. It is not a political weapon or tool, and neither John Edwards or Tony Snow are using it that way.
Leave cancer out of political issues such as this and get to the real issues. Smokescreens are just ridiculous and only serve to confuse and disorient, taking the attention away from other important things.
Purrs,

potter
03-28-2007, 07:09 PM
Cancer is a personal tragedy to the person who has it. It is not a political weapon or tool, and neither John Edwards or Tony Snow are using it that way.
Leave cancer out of political issues such as this and get to the real issues. Smokescreens are just ridiculous and only serve to confuse and disorient, taking the attention away from other important things.
Purrs,



I personally wouldn't consider this a political issue if Merck hadn't embedded lobbyists in all state legislature, some as state representatives for the sole purpose of pushing a product costing $360.00 a pop..and making it mandatory by law. Why couldnt they sell the product on it's own merits? What are the side effects? Many people no longer have a say now.

What next?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/21/ap/business/mainD8NDU4AG0.shtml

Merck Suspends Lobbying for Vaccine

(AP) Pediatricians, gynecologists and even health insurers all call Gardasil, the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, a big medical advance.

But medical groups, politicians and parents began rebelling after disclosure of a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign by Gardasil's maker, Merck & Co., to get state legislatures to require 11- and 12-year-old girls to get the three-dose vaccine as a requirement for school attendance.

Some parents' groups and doctors particularly objected because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted disease, human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer. Vaccines mandated for school attendance usually are for diseases easily spread through casual contact, such as measles and mumps.

Bowing to pressure, Merck said Tuesday that it is immediately suspending its controversial campaign, which it had funded through a third party.

"Our goal is about cervical cancer prevention, and we want to reach as many females as possible with Gardasil," Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's medical director for vaccines, told The Associated Press.

"We're concerned that our role in supporting school requirements is a distraction from that goal, and as such have suspended our lobbying efforts," Haupt said, adding the company will continue providing information about the vaccine if requested by government officials.

Whitehouse Station-based Merck launched Gardasil, the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, in June. It protects against the two virus strains that cause 70 percent of cervical cancer and two strains that cause most genital warts.

Sales totaled $235 million through the end of 2006, according to Merck.

Last month, the AP reported that Merck was channeling money for its state-mandate campaign through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators across the country.

Conservative groups opposed the campaign, saying it would encourage premarital sex, and parents' rights groups said it interfered with their control over their children.

Even two of the prominent medical groups that supported broad use of the vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Family Practitioners, questioned Merck's timing, Haupt said Tuesday.

"They, along with some other folks in the public health community, believe there needs to be more time," he said, to ensure government funding for the vaccine for uninsured girls is in place and that families and government officials have enough information about it.

Legislatures in roughly 20 states have introduced measures that would mandate girls have the vaccine to attend school, but none has passed so far. However, Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Feb. 2 issued an executive order requiring Texas girls entering the sixth grade as of 2008 get the vaccinations, triggering protests from lawmakers in that state. Parents there could opt out for their daughters if they state religious or philosophical objections, but several Texas lawmakers want to have parents opt in instead of opting out.

Perry defended his order Tuesday, a day after lawmakers in Austin held a lengthy hearing on the issue but failed to act on a bill to override the order.

Dr. Anne Francis, who chairs an American Academy of Pediatrics committee that advocates for better insurer reimbursement on vaccines, called Merck's change of heart "a good move for the public."

"I believe that their timing was a little bit premature," she said, "so soon after (Gardasil's) release, before we have a picture of whether there are going to be any untoward side effects."

Given that the country has been "burned" by some drugs whose serious side effects emerged only after they were in wide use, including Merck's withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, Francis said, it would be better to wait awhile before mandating Gardasil usage.

She said she also was concerned about requiring a vaccine for a disease that is not communicable and so does not have a big public health impact. While doctors expect Gardasil to have a huge effect in poor countries where women do not get Pap smears, in this country those tests limit the incidence of cervical cancer to about 9,710 new cases and 3,700 deaths each year.

The National Vaccine Information Center has been publicizing reports of side effects _ mostly dizziness and fainting _ in several dozen people getting Gardasil, which is approved for use in females ages 9 to 26. The center, a group of parents worried that vaccines harm some children, questions whether the vaccine was tested in enough young girls.

Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, say that reports of side effects through the end of January don't raise any red flags.

The vaccine also is controversial because of its price _ $360 for the three doses required over a six-month stretch. Because of that cost and what pediatricians and gynecologists say is inadequate reimbursement by insurers, many are choosing not to stock the vaccine or requiring surcharges to administer it, increasing the cost for many families and making the vaccine hard to come by.

Pookie
03-29-2007, 12:50 AM
Where did John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Tony Snow, or Lance Armstrong ever mention Merck?
This is what I mean. Cut to the real issues.
Purrs,

Buck Laser
03-29-2007, 01:29 AM
Where did John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Tony Snow, or Lance Armstrong ever mention Merck?
This is what I mean. Cut to the real issues.
Purrs,


It's an issue in Texas because the Texiz guv, Rick Perry, issued an executive order requiring that prepubescent girls receive the new HPV vaccine, made only by Merck. One of the embarrassing facts surrounding this decision is that his son just happens to work in a lobbying role for Merck.

And as a two-time cancer survivor, I have to dispute its characterization as a "tragedy." It's a traumatic event, to be sure, but it may not necessarily be a tragedy. I had colon cancer at the age of 40, and leukemia at 69, but I'm still here. Next month, I'll have been cancer free for two years. I don't credit strength of character or divine intervention for my survival, but the presence of symptoms and the fact that the types of the cancers I had happened to be of the curable kind. But no one gets to choose.

Kristofer D. Dale
03-29-2007, 02:05 AM
It is not a political weapon or tool, and neither John Edwards or Tony Snow are using it that way. Leave cancer out of political issues such as this and get to the real issues. Smokescreens are just ridiculous and only serve to confuse and disorient, taking the attention away from other important things.

I wrote my open letter to Bill Richardson, in case you hadn't noticed. Governor Richardson is clearly "using it that way". While you are entitled to your opinion that cancer is a tragedy, I'm entitled to my opinion that the curent state of cancer treatment is a travesty. No amount of complacent purring on your part will change what I know and how I feel about this subject. If you do not like politics, I suggest one of the many "self-help" forums that abound these days, since you seem far too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of open debate...

KDD

Pookie
03-29-2007, 02:15 AM
Really? Interesting. Perhaps you can't stand a gentle touch, my dear.
Best to you,

Kristofer D. Dale
03-29-2007, 02:27 AM
Cut to the real issues.

I have, quite often, for all the good it doesn't do. Here's three notable examples from the past:

http://www.nmia.com/~barefoot/comment.html

Pookie
03-29-2007, 02:33 AM
Honey, your link looks funny and doesn't go anywhere, please try another, I want to see, read and understand this, ok? All I see is "Onward Through The Fog," "What A Rush," and "Fairly Unbalanced." Please, can you simplify this somewhat for an olde farte like me?
Thanks, and I will read what you post.
Purrs,

Kristofer D. Dale
03-29-2007, 02:51 AM
Honey, your link looks funny and doesn't go anywhere, please try another, I want to see, read and understand this, ok?

The titles are active links to the articles, just click on each one in turn to read them...

KDD

Pookie
03-29-2007, 02:58 AM
Oh...okay, thanks! I will!
Purrs,

Pookie
03-29-2007, 03:04 AM
Very interesting! Those articles are well-written, friend. Very good.
Have you thought about taking your thoughts to a radio talk show? There may be AM stations who would love to take you on.
Most interesting...where will you go from here?
Purrs,

Kristofer D. Dale
03-29-2007, 10:19 PM
...where will you go from here?


Keep posting my letter all over the 'net, see if anyone notices. I doubt Bill will...

;^]

KDD