A vaccine to prevent some strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer is expected to be available this summer.

Cervical cancer is the #2 cancer killer of women, and the vaccine could prevent about 70% of cervical cancer cases.

to the lady.  And while there is no proven link to male cancer.... who knows for certain.

There will be more to come.

cures for diease and did not provide them to the public because it would "put them out of business"  While I realize that is the perception of some, it is not the reality of the business of pharmaceutics.  Here is a preventative - and while not 100% effective, it will save suffering and lives.  I would challenge anyone though to understand that vaccines carry an enormous liability with them.  To top it off, there is no protection to the pharmaceutical company, if a bunch of lawyers decide to "just go after them" for the hell of it.  This is why the pharma companies are not motivated to be innovative.  Too risky.

Please everyone, consider this an important step in human medicine.

Just FYI . . . the vaccine is only good for younger women - up to age 26, and Merek the manufacturer is looking to have it approved mainly for 11-13 year old females . . . too late for many but certainly  a great advance in Med. technology!

I was glad to hear this.  Though it will be given to kids starting around 12 I believe.  They do this as the 12 yr olds have not come into contact with that type of virus.

It's useless to give it to an adult who is active though.

I am surprised the pharmacetical company threw us a bone too as what bizarro stated about them is right on the money.

A closer look at the MSNBC article should indicate the motivation of Merck. The immunization protocol for HPV with "Gardasil" is 3 shots over 6 months, with an anticipated cost of $300-$500. Merck believes that sales of "Gardasil" will reach $1 billion per year.

Merck is definitely looking at this as a profit-making vaccine, as $1 billion markets are typical for profitable drug therapies. So, this is very unlike the widespread vaccinations for polio or mumps, where the profit margin is much lower.

As the MSNBC article note, the high price of Gardasil may be a barrier to widespread vaccinations. This would be unfortunate, as you would then lose the 'herd' immunity - at a certain point when there are massive numbers of immunized individuals, even the few remaining
unvaccinated are unlikely to contract the virus.

From a public health perspective, the proper response by the U.S. government would be to fund the $1 billion for Gardasil to insure complete vaccination of the susceptible population.

It's not that it's only "good for" young people, simply that the target population is those who have not yet had sex or who are unlikely to have had enough partners to have been previously infected.

Yes, it's too late for us. But our daughters, let's hope for a bright new future for them! Or at least a future free from genital warts and cervical cancer.

Not likely with the current political climate.   As our intrepid leader Mr. Bush has made clear the only effective protection is abstinence.

they neither wish to publish a full story nor do they have the intelligence necessary to appreciate the full story.  NOTICE:  They NEVER discuss the libility of releasing a vaccine, of any type, into our litigious, trial lawyer-fed avaricious society.  Understand, it would be more meaningful if the govenment were to relieve Merck from liability for the GMP manufacture of the vaccine - thereby eliminating the need for the insurance....   but if all you have to go on is MSNBC you would never appreciate what drugs cost - and where the money goes.... and it does go.