In bid to boost vaccine sales, Merck appoints Gerberding

[brant31]

New Jersey's Merck Names New President of Vaccines Business
By Susan Todd/The Star-Ledger
December 21, 2009, 11:46AM

Merck announced this morning that Julie Gerberding, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until earlier this year, will head the drug maker’s vaccine business. Gerberding will lead the company’s $5 billion global vaccine business.

She will be responsible for the commercialization of the current portfolio of vaccines, which includes Zostavax for protection against shingles and Gardasil for prevention against human papillomavirus. She will also plan for the introduction of vaccines from the company’s pipeline and accelerating its efforts to broaden access to the developing world.


And from Reuters:

Gerberding, who led the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and stepped down when President Barack Obama took office, will head up the company's $5 billion global vaccine business that includes shots to prevent chickenpox, cervical cancer and pneumonia.

She may be charged with reigniting flagging sales of Merck's Gardasil vaccine to prevent cervical cancer by protecting against human papillomavirus or HPV. After an encouraging launch Gardasil sales have been falling and were down 22 percent in the third quarter at $311 million.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by brant31

New Jersey's Merck Names New President of Vaccines Business
By Susan Todd/The Star-Ledger
December 21, 2009, 11:46AM

Merck announced this morning that Julie Gerberding, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until earlier this year, will head the drug maker’s vaccine business. Gerberding will lead the company’s $5 billion global vaccine business.

She will be responsible for the commercialization of the current portfolio of vaccines, which includes Zostavax for protection against shingles and Gardasil for prevention against human papillomavirus. She will also plan for the introduction of vaccines from the company’s pipeline and accelerating its efforts to broaden access to the developing world.


And from Reuters:

Gerberding, who led the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and stepped down when President Barack Obama took office, will head up the company's $5 billion global vaccine business that includes shots to prevent chickenpox, cervical cancer and pneumonia.

She may be charged with reigniting flagging sales of Merck's Gardasil vaccine to prevent cervical cancer by protecting against human papillomavirus or HPV. After an encouraging launch Gardasil sales have been falling and were down 22 percent in the third quarter at $311 million.

Big FREAKING surprise.

Still infuriates me, somehow.

[SunshineJ]

Gee that doesn't seem suspicious at all now does it? :Puke

[xmasbaby7]

Someone held a poster up at the Green the Vaccines rally in DC with a big picture of her with the heading:

Criminals Destroying Children

[Awaken]

Ugh. Not surprised in the least.

[emma1325]

How can you live with yourself if you make money by destroying childrens' health? Remember her response to the Hannah Poling issue?

"Nobody worry, vaccines don't cause autism. Well, they did for Hannah Poling, but we're just not going to think about or talk about that. VACCINATE."

[Turquesa]

So goes the revolving door between government and Pharma...

[lurve]

Former CDC head just landed top vaccine job at Merck

The former head of the CDC just landed the top vaccine job with Merck.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK2K520091221

enuf said

[Crazybean]

Aaaaaaaaaamazing...

[ema-adama]

Ugh!

[ema-adama]

Dr. Gerberding will lead the company's $5 billion global vaccine business.

http://www.pr-inside.com/dr-julie-ge...f-r1642112.htm

(I just saw there are two threads on this.)

[Gitti]

Why is that not outlawed? Because the rulers of the government are totally corrupt. That's all. Too bad.

What can we do about it? Spread the word.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027789_Dr...ing_Merck.html

[amnesiac]

Merging threads.

Please remember to remain focused on the issue & not individuals:

Members may discuss news items in appropriate parenting forums such as breastfeeding items in lactivism, birth related items in the birth forums or chickenpox outbreaks in Health & Healing. However, keep in mind that threads still need to remain on-topic for the forum and should not be about individuals but about the general topic.

[Ruthla]

I can understand how it's a conflict of interests if a gov't health official is getting money from or has worked for a vaccine or drug company. If income from working for Merck had paid for her fancy vacation home, I can see how she might be biased to THEN be working for the CDC.

But how is it a problem the other way around? She worked for CDC first, when she didn't have this commercial link. Once she no longer had that job, she was offered another one, in a similar field, in the private sector.

I do understand that somebody willing to work in vaccine promotion isn't exactly open-minded about the body's innate ability to heal itself, and in general is likely to promote vaccine and health policies I may disagree with. But I still can't bring myself to be upset about Merck's decision to hire Gerberding or her decision to accept the position.

[nicolebeth]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I can understand how it's a conflict of interests if a gov't health official is getting money from or has worked for a vaccine or drug company. If income from working for Merck had paid for her fancy vacation home, I can see how she might be biased to THEN be working for the CDC.

But how is it a problem the other way around? She worked for CDC first, when she didn't have this commercial link. Once she no longer had that job, she was offered another one, in a similar field, in the private sector.

I do understand that somebody willing to work in vaccine promotion isn't exactly open-minded about the body's innate ability to heal itself, and in general is likely to promote vaccine and health policies I may disagree with. But I still can't bring myself to be upset about Merck's decision to hire Gerberding or her decision to accept the position.

This really makes a lot of sense. And, for the most part I would agree. My concern is more of an unprovable what if: what if someone worked for the CDC, and acted in a way favorably to a company (like Merck) in the hope (and, even worse, in the understanding) of receiving a job in the future. People leave government jobs to go to the private sector all of the time. But, if their governmental policy was at all based on hopes for the private sector job...that's what concerns me.

In this case, she could totally be on the up-and-up, just be someone who truly believes in vaccination and that what Merck does is right; thus, for her, this is the perfect job.

[lurve]

Originally Posted by nicolebeth

This really makes a lot of sense. And, for the most part I would agree. My concern is more of an unprovable what if: what if someone worked for the CDC, and acted in a way favorably to a company (like Merck) in the hope (and, even worse, in the understanding) of receiving a job in the future. People leave government jobs to go to the private sector all of the time. But, if their governmental policy was at all based on hopes for the private sector job...that's what concerns me.
.

THIS
Having worked for the government I have seen many government officials "suck up" to the companies and people they were supposed to regulate. (Can we say Enron? Mortgage Fiasco?)

Why? Because you get a lot more money in the private sector AND you know people in the government so you can be influential to those still in the government. So big companies are always taking the government officials. Government officials know this. This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth....

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I can understand how it's a conflict of interests if a gov't health official is getting money from or has worked for a vaccine or drug company. If income from working for Merck had paid for her fancy vacation home, I can see how she might be biased to THEN be working for the CDC.

But how is it a problem the other way around? She worked for CDC first, when she didn't have this commercial link. Once she no longer had that job, she was offered another one, in a similar field, in the private sector.

I do understand that somebody willing to work in vaccine promotion isn't exactly open-minded about the body's innate ability to heal itself, and in general is likely to promote vaccine and health policies I may disagree with. But I still can't bring myself to be upset about Merck's decision to hire Gerberding or her decision to accept the position.

If this were all on the up and up, while I personally may disagree with using her former position as an "authority" to now promote a company's vaccine program, there is really nothing wrong with it. However, given the number of people who are on the vax manufacturer's role while "testing" or "validating" the safety of vaccines, something like this would of course automatically be viewed with suspicion by those who are against vaccines. Unfortunately history and research have taught us that most likely her new position was already assured due to favors done while in office. One would like to think that people in general have more integrity, but that hasn't been a character trait that's high on the list when dealing with vaccine manufacturers and the government.

[Deborah]

I was trying to work out why this appointment makes me uncomfortable and then I remembered the right terminology:

http://law.wustl.edu/journal/6/p171_Levin.pdf

The problem is the "appearance of corruption".

Basically, in public life and also in corporate life, people who want respect should avoid the appearance of corruption. Which means that they don't do things that look like insider dealing or payoffs or catering to special interests.

It is possible that Dr. G. was totally and completely fair and right in every act relating to vaccines in general and Merck vaccines in particular during her tenure at the CDC. I sort of doubt it, but it let's allow for the possibility just to make the point clear.

Nevertheless, for her to move from the CDC post, to the Merck post, in a relatively short period of time (the legal minimum, in fact) creates the appearance of corruption.

Why avoid the appearance of corruption? Because even if dirty dealing isn't present, the appearance leads to distrust and cynicism.

This appointment is a prime example. For people who already have some niggling doubts about the safety of the vaccine program, Dr. G's lightning move from the public sector to a very high paying and prestigious position in the private sector where she used to be top regulator...the appearance of corruption is flashing in Time Square level lighting.

Doesn't matter if she is, in fact, as pure as the driven snow (in an unpolluted area of the globe), it looks like crap.

[xmasbaby7]

There is a HUGE problem with this that is rampant with private sector work after serving in the government.

After someone has supposedly worked to protect the hen house for nearly a decade, do you want them to take that information and go lead the foxes?

[brant31]

Hi -- OP here. I just wanted to clarify that I posted this news item not because anything seemed unethical. What immediately jumped out at me were 2 things:

1) Merck has really pulled out the big guns to revive flagging vaccine sales. Their attitude seems to be that it's necessary/helpful to get greater street cred with doctors and parents at a time when there is significant questioning of the need and/or timing of their vaccine product line. With Julie Gerberding, the Meredith Vieira of public health, at the helm of this division, Merck clearly intends to use personality and connections to win over doubting doctors and parents.

2) Gerberding's selection underscores the fact that extremely conventional, market-friendly approaches to medicine trump the value of parental concerns when it comes to the intersection of controversial interventions and big business, particularly among our appointed and elected officials. I doubt that Gerberding had to change her views in any way to take this job. This means that our top officials think like CEOs, not like parents and doctors.