FierceBiotechFierceBioResearcherFierceVaccinesFiercePharma   FierceHealthcare
About | Sample | Privacy
Related Topics >> vaccine | Merck | Gardasil

Wall Street shrugs off FDA’s Gardasil rejection

  • Email
  • Print
  • Comment
  • Contact Author

Many Wall Street analysts greeted the FDA's decision to reject Merck's bid to expand the use of Gardasil to 27 to 45-year-old women with a yawn. Most analysts think the key market for the vaccine is already covered by the agency's 2006 approval of the cervical cancer vaccine to protect girls and women aged 9 to 26. The older group was unlikely to deliver any significant new revenue. And Gardasil has captured a significantly larger market than GlaxoSmithKline's Cervarix.

One of the few dissents to that opinion came from James Kelly, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who said the new market is important to Merck because sales of Gardasil are beginning to peak. Merck says it plans to respond to the FDA's decision in about a month.

- read the AP report

Related Articles:
France picks Gardasil over GSK upstart
It's Merck v. Glaxo in vaccine battle
FDA staffers raise Gardasil questions

More stories about vaccine   Merck   Gardasil  


There is no logical reason for the FDA to reject expanded use of Gardasil. I am 56 years old and have personally used Merck (and other manufacturer) live and dead/disrupted/engineered virus vaccines by the dozens for years, and had no untoward effects from megadoses of Merck (et cetera, eg Sanofi-Aventis) living or dead mumps, measles, varicella, rubella, influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, hepatitis A, hepatitis B etc. live and dead and fractionated viral and bacterial vaccine products (e.g. Salmonella), administered by repeated daily injections for weeks at a time (for alleviating autoimmune disease.) The FDA and urban-legend paranoia about vaccines is demonstrably absurd. Those apprehensive would do better to foreswear usage of cars, with their higher morbidity and mortality rate, and never go outdoors for fear of being struck by lightning, which is also a higher risk than the "risk" of vaccines [which is currently so low that the "adverse consequences" are likely due to unknonwn causes and not due to vaccines in the first place.] June 26, 2008 Fierce Vaccines -- Randy Crawford 3701 Second St. #10 Coralville, Iowa 52241 (319)400-2837

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

What is 10 + 70?
To combat spam, please solve the math question above.