This is a prime example of how religion, and its willful ignorance of facts in favor of faith, can be deadly. In Monday’s debate between Republican presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann laid into Texas governor Rick Perry’s order that female students in Texas be vaccinated against the HPV virus, which causes cervical cancer. The New York Times blog, the Caucus, reports:
In Monday night’s debate, Mrs. Bachmann seized on an executive order that Mr. Perry issued requiring sixth-grade girls in Texas to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, criticizing him for an overreach of state power in a decision properly left to parents.
On Tuesday she expanded her criticism, suggesting that Mr. Perry had potentially put young girls at risk by forcing “an injection of what could potentially be a very dangerous drug.’’
Mrs. Bachmann said on NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday that after Monday night’s debate in Tampa, Fla., a tearful mother approached her and said her daughter had suffered “mental retardation” after being vaccinated against HPV. “It can have very dangerous side effects,’’ Mrs. Bachmann said.
Bachmann is wrong. The HPV vaccine is one of the safest vaccines around, and it saves lives—many of them. Its safety is discussed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
HPV vaccines were studied in thousands of people in many countries around the world, including the United States. These studies found that both HPV vaccines were safe and cause no serious side effects. The most common adverse event was injection site pain, redness and swelling. This reaction was common but mild. More than 35 million doses of HPV vaccine have been distributed in the United States as of June, 2011. Almost all doses distributed have been Gardasil.
Wikipedia adds a bit more:
As of 1 September 2009, there have been 44 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine. None of the 27 confirmed deaths of women and girls who had taken the vaccine were linked to the vaccine.
Its efficacy (from the CDC):
The main efficacy studies of the quadrivalent vaccine were conducted in young women and men (16 through 26 years of age). Among persons not previously exposed to a targeted HPV type, the trials demonstrated nearly 100% vaccine efficacy in preventing cervical precancers, vulvar and vaginal precancers, and genital warts in women caused by the four vaccine types, as well as 90% vaccine efficacy in preventing genital warts and 75% vaccine efficacy in preventing anal precancers in men.
Although mandatory vaccination (recommended for girls aged 11 and 12, and given in three doses) is required only in the District of Columbia and Virginia, given its safety and efficacy, Gardasil or a similar vaccine should be required everywhere. And what about the “manadatory” part. Bachmann said this:
To have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong. That should never be done. That’s a violation of a liberty interest.
“Well, I’m offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn’t have a choice,” replied Bachmann. “That’s what I’m offended for.”
But, of course, we all know that vaccinations are already required for school in many states. The CDC notes:
Each state has immunization requirements, sometimes called “school laws,” that must be met before a child may enter school. These may include vaccination against diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus (lockjaw), Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and hepatitis B. Some states have added varicella (chicken pox) vaccination to the list of required vaccines. Smallpox vaccination was once required, but the disease has been so successfully eradicated that this vaccination is no longer needed.
These days, sexual activity of young people is something one can reasonably expect. One can make a good case that HPV vaccines should also be required—at the very least, offered—in a similar fashion.
So what’s the problem? Religion, I suspect, and its attendant disapproval of sex among unmarried young people. It’s been said before, but it’s worth repeating: people like Bachmann spread their lies for one reason alone. It’s not that they oppose government injections: those already exist, and Bachmann hasn’t said a word about diphtheria. No, it’s the fact that HPV is a disease transmitted through sexual contact, and people like Bachmann would prefer to have women die from cancer than to have safe sex.
_______
I don’t know what Bachmann’s particular motivations are. But there are anti-vaxers to be found across the political, educational, and religious spectrum (spectra?).
The anti-vax is no less irrational than a religious movement. But I do think it is distinct.
Jerry’s not claiming that the anti-vax set is precisely the same as the religious set (but I bet the middle of that Venn diagram is pretty big).
He’s suggesting that Bachmann’s opposition to the HPV vaccine in particular is motivated by religious concerns. “If we make sex safe,” the thinking goes, “young people might have sex. Therefore, we shouldn’t make sex safe. They’ll just have to suck it up and abstain!” Well, good luck with that “fostering abstinence” thing. Honestly, when right-wing religionists think they can make young people abstain, I can only think “were they ever young themselves?!”
You are probably correct. In fact, my suspicion is that if there is a center-of-gravity for anti-vax orientation it lies among the left-of-center/religiously-minded. (Being left-of-center myself, part of this distresses me.)
Your comment, gbjames, is very muddled. Christians, who of course are the majority of anti-vaxers are rarely left of center. Crossed sticks, jesus christ, crispy meat crackers, republicans, blood drinkers, right-of-center, christians; are most commonly related.
I do not agree. At least as far as the “very muddled” part.
One doesn’t have to go much further than the Huffington Post to observe overlap between the left-of-center political spectrum and woo-filled anti-vaxers.
The fast majority of Americans are, sadly, religious in one way or another. That includes a very large number of politically liberal types. As far as I’m concerned, they are as deluded as their co-religionists on the right, although the tend to be slightly more sane on most day-to-day political matters (from my point of view). And unfortunately these folks appear to be susceptible to anti-vaxer, anecdotal ways of thinking.
You don’t have to be a right-wing religious nut to be an anti-vaxer. Bad accomodationist thinking seems to occur more left-of-center. Extreme right-wing religious nut-jobbery is mostly right-of-center. Anti-vaxers don’t, in my experience, fall more on the right.
Oh, I think there are plenty of anti-vaxers on the left and the right.
Right-wingers get there via their “anti-science/anti-higher-learning-at-librul-universities” sentiment (in addition to the “sex is dirty” path I described above).
Lefties get there by preferring woo, and by viewing vaccines as unnecessary commodities which only exist to out money in the pockets of pharmaceutical corporation executives.
Well, I guess we are agreeing.
Anti-vaxers on the left and on the right. I’m bothered more by those on the left. I expect the right to be dominated by anti-scienct insanity. I prefer to think that the left-of-center is dominated by rational thought.
But I fear that my preferences don’t entirely reflect reality.
Well, I think you can be heartened by the observation that, while left-leaning woo-ists abound, intelligent, rational thinkers tend to land left-of-center on most issues.
I would say the more you move from center the more you fall in to woo (using woo to encompass both sets of irrationality,lack of skepticism, and hubris). Which is why left-leaning wooists abound, as well right.
One thing we neglect, usually out of our own hubris, is even wooists can be rational on some subjects while not on others. If you think you’re rational on every subject under the sun you are fooling yourself. Identifying which ones you’re irrational about is a work in progress, something like the Hindi tense of “am & becoming”.
When I was a kid, American liberalism was supposed to have a strong sense of skepticism even about itself. I’m wondering where that has gone..
One last thing, all anti-vaxxers, except those on the coercion issue (nose & face, but some hold to their principles…) are anti-science on the subject of vaccines. You make a distinction without a difference.
These are blog comments. They are short and are not intended as perfect, absolute, exhaustive explanations. Most of the commenters here, I would guess, don’t need pedants coming along to let them know that their comment doesn’t map quite perfectly onto reality, or doesn’t tell every little bit of the story.
I realize the world, it’s inhabitants and the interactions between them are complex and messy. Are clear-cut, one-size-fits-all explanations rare? Of course. But I stand by my statements as decent approximations that are very generally accurate.
Regarding being anti-science – I suppose you could say that any anti-vaxer is anti-science by default. But it is incontestably the right that holds the pursuit of knowledge itself in contempt. Listen to Dennis Prager rail about “liberal universities” and how they’re “ruining Amurica!”
And finally, the point of the OP was not to try and show anti-vax sentiments as a right-wing phenomenon, but simply to suggest (quite rightly, imo) that Bachmann’s objection to this particular vaccine was motivated by right-wing religious ideology.
JS1685,
I agree with your last point. It was the extension of that to “anti-vaxxers are right-wing religionists, thars the problem” that I took exception to that for obvious reasons, again directing you to Orac’s last two paragraphs.
While it wasn’t the OP point (though it was blown into that by the very heading) it was of many commenters (however subtle).
Bachmann is an idiot, and an anti-vaxxer appeal will likely blow up in her face (even over HPV).
At the risk of being accused of promoting my blog (heh – guilty)… check out what she said AFTERWARD:
http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2011/09/christianity-and-gullibility-go.html
There are many legitimate grounds for being against this vaccine. The fact that she went for the lowest common denominator and then ramped up the rhetoric afterward suggests she’s not talking to people who are in any way rational. She’s going for the amygdala.
“There are many legitimate grounds for being against this vaccine.”
Like?
Indeed. Inquiring minds want to know why one should be against a vaccine that protects young women against a potentially deadly form of cancer.
We’re all waiting breathlessly for the reply.
oops I meant Perry’s law — that it’s a personal responsibility, that it’s not like airborne viruses that are a greater health risk to the population at large, that it only applies girls, when its boys who transmit it to unvaccinated girls. She could have raise those issues and the libertarians would be satisfied. She didn’t have to take the pseudo-science road or worse, portray it as a rape that robs girls of their virginity
that it’s a personal responsibility
that’s not a legitimate reason for not requiring vaccination, as has already been ruled for all other vaccinations.
that it’s not like airborne viruses that are a greater health risk
again, not a legitimate reason. with that in mind, any parent could arbitrarily (and, capriciously) decide what “risks” are involved with any particular disease.
that it only applies girls
this is where the vaccine is effective. Again, not even a reason, let alone a legitimate one.
She didn’t have to take the pseudo-science road
sorry, but all of the “other” reasons you list are no better from the pseudo-science end.
I’m not saying that this is *MY* position, but that if Michele Bachmann wanted to argue against this vaccine this would be one route that she could take that would have more credibility than the argument from one story from a stranger or making it sound like a rape
The only concern I see with Perry’s law concerns Perry’s relationship with Merck, did he act without bias? But the law itself, the vaccine itself, no.
And without telepathy, you will never know. Money doesn’t always make a politician’s decision, some really do follow their intellect, principles, etc., even if much less often than the rest of us.
But if you tell anyone I said that I’ll deny it.
I’ll leave you with Will Rogers:
“The best thing about this group of candidates is that only one of them can win.”;
“If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven.”; and ‘The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks the best.”
I wish he, Twain, even Mencken were still alive today. Swift too. It really doesn’t change. Always be skeptical.
from LadyAtheist’s site: “I can see why a parent might opt out from a vaccine that’s a private health risk rather than a public risk.”
Please do tell. Perhaps you can explain to this former public health officer how HPV is a private and not a public health risk. Or did you mean to say the vaccine is a private risk (which is how your copy reads)?
I’ll get the popcorn.
It’s not the same type of risk as measles or whooping cough — it can’t be transmitted via coughing. When a girl gets vaccinated it’s to protect herself from cancer, not the boy who might pick it up from her because he won’t get cancer. A girl won’t get HPV from going to school with infected kids and sitting in the classroom with them.
I disagree with the idea that a girl doesn’t need a vaccine, but I do think that if you’re going to debate the merits of mandatory vaccination you should discuss what the disease is and how it’s transmitted and what the risks are, not anecdotal stories from strangers.
Actually, there is apparently some evidence linking certain oral cancers in men to sexually-transmitted HPV.
I think if you extend your line of reasoning a little further you will see that even if it turns out to be true that the boy can not contract cancer from the HPV virus he gets from the girl, that he is now a carrier and can pass it on to other people, including females.
You may not be aware of the fact that the higher the percentage of the population that receives a given vaccine the less likely it is that anyone in the population will contract the disease, whether they have been vaccinated or not.
I’m not saying that this is *MY* position, but that if Michele Bachmann wanted to argue against this vaccine this would be one route that she could take that would have more credibility than the argument from one story from a stranger or making it sound like a rape
I really think LadyAtheist should spend a day or two studying up on HPV before she continues with any further proclamations as to the relative health risks involved, or even whether that SHOULD be a factor in whether or not we should leave the decision with parents to risk their kids, and EVERYONES kids, unnecessarily.
I’d bet Orac has a nice blog post or two on the subject, for starters.
In fact, Orac has a much more detailed analysis, with many, MANY, links contained therein:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/michelle_bachmanns_anti-vaccine_statement.php#more
I certainly agree there. While I have been out of the loop keeping current with the literature, the last time I looked (early 2000’s), there seemed to be a little disagreement regarding modes of transmission — whether or not some of the variants were transmitted by simple skin-to-skin contact (which could be facilitated by sharing towels, for example). On the epi (bird’s eye) level, as opposed to the bench science, such non-sexual modes make sense, considering the ubiquity of the viruses.
Back in the early 2000’s, there was disagreement between Health Canada and the CDC on the likelihood of non-sexual transmission (with Ottawa saying transmission via towels was possible – perhaps based on Fraser, 1994). Now it appears that the CDC is saying that the non-sexually transmitted forms are not the same ones that cause ano/genital lesions, and merely result in palmar/plantar warts and are not associated with any cancers.
A quick look-see finds me a 2004 CDC report that goes into detail about non-sexual transmission, as well as sexual (but non penetrative) transmission. Planned Parenthood has a page up that provides more references to this detail, and begs for more research into the bench science. (a notoriously difficult undertaking involving tissue models and electron microscopy, if memory serves).
So anyway, it’s a bit of a tough nut to crack, and I (and my former boss) are a bit dubious that significant non-sexual transmission occurs, esp. of the nastier varieties. But as you know, knowledge changes depending on new findings, and it may be prudent – esp on a public policy level – to act as if more casual transmission is possible. On the bright side, a finding of a potential for significant non-sexual transmission could remove all the bullshit stigma associated with STDs, if it became public knowledge that there is some kind of non-sexual “out” associated with at least some of the variants. It would sure pull the rug out from under the moral crusaders (at the risk of creating undue panic). It’s a toughie, to be sure.
Don’t be so sure:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/05/20/the-real-reason-boys-should-get-the-hpv-vaccine/
Bachmann exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger Effect better than most. But then, in the Republican Party, you have so many choices.
shhhh don’t let that get around! It’s hard enough to get a guy to go oral as it is!
Wait, what?
what happened to the post I replied to? ACK!
It’s one thread up. Navigating this posting and reply system is a little confusing until get used to it.
Pertinent:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/michelle_bachmanns_anti-vaccine_statement.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Finsolence+%28Respectful+Insolence%29
So, Michele Backmann is wrong… OK, no surprise.
But… Rick Perry is right? Isn’t he a moron — sorry, a Republican — too?
(Btw, my reading of Wikipedia suggests that HPV is no longer mandated in Texas, as Perry’s 2007 executive order was “undone” by the Texas Legislature… ?)
/@
Well, Perry apologized for being right, so…
Ah, so he made the right decision for the wrong reasons… and then made the wrong decision for wrong reasons. Yep, that sounds more like a mo… Republican.
/@
There was a big stink here in Texas about that. Perry signed the order after accepting bribes (aka “donations”) from Merck for doing so. Then when his fundamentalist/anti-sex/anti-vax constituents raised hell, he quick backed off from the whole thing.
One thing (only) that Bachman is right about: Perry is a snake.
Actually, I believe the argument goes more or less like:
1) Sex outside marriage is wrong
2) Therefore, it should be punished, either by a child or by an STD. If the STD is fatal, so much the better.
Mind, I don’t know if Bachman thinks that, but it seems to be what her audience believes.
That’s a rather crude way of putting it. It sounds so much nicer when you use the flowery rhetoric employed by the wingnut gallery, to wit:
“Every rose has its thorn.”
Don’t you dare ruin that song by tea-partying it.
I don’t know that Bachman thinks.
( oh… subscribing )
What have we come to when a presidential candidate is pro-cancer?
But I thought she was “pro-life”?
/@
That only applies to the 9 months before birth.
After that, you’re on your own.
I imagine that if one scratches the surface, one might find plenty of candidates who were in the pocket of tobacco corporations.
“If we scratch the surface…” Are we taking about inoculation here?
(Which suggests another interesting faith-vs-science story altogether: Allen’s Inoculation.)
/@
‘a tearful mother approached her and said her daughter had suffered “mental retardation” after being vaccinated against HPV.’
It sounds like _somebody_ is suffering from “mental retardation”.
Some part of this conversation should include the fact that the maker of the vaccine contributed to Rick Perry’s campaign.
There are many good reasons for vaccinating girls against HPV, and in the fullness of time, it will most likely be required with the rest of the battery of vaccinations that children are required to have to enter public school.
Rich Perry is so craven a politician, however, that no thinking person should entertain the idea that he was all about the health of girls, and not any about the campaign contribution.
This is a bad way to go about getting something good done, and in that regard, provides another straw for the anti-vaxxers to clutch in the stupidity of the vaccine wars.
Indeed! Per andyo’s link above.
/@
Where is the evidence that Rick Perry only signed that mandate in direct response to a few thousand dollar donation to his campaign?
If we are speaking about hypotheticals, maybe Merk used Perry. Maybe they were like “Look, we *need* to get this vaccine to girls, if we just throw some money at Perry and hire his girlfriend as a secretary, we can get kids this vaccine and save some goddamn lives.”
Not that there is really evidence anywhere connecting the two events. People are just repeating the ‘connection’ drawn by a psycho hose beast, Michele Bachmann, when under normal circumstances you would laugh at anything escaping her mouth.
Turn up your nose at the anti-vaxers while anti-‘corporation’ BS is alive and well on the Left– even directed towards the corporations that manufacture a virtually 100% effective vaccines that save lives.
Whatever.
Erv, the whole state of Texas was talking about those “donations” at the time, and somehow the number seems to have shrunk from millions to “a few thousand” in the interim. Bachman certainly didn’t invent the accusation — she’s not that bright.
I should point out that I personally am in favor of the vaccination iteself, unlike Bachman and (currently) Perry both.
A corporation’s highest priorities are to enhance its executive’s wealth and maximize current corporate profits. It’s just the cost of that wealth and those profits that sometimes good happens coincidentally.
Well, A) I did not say “that Rick Perry only signed that mandate in direct response to a few thousand dollar donation to his campaign”, 2) the contribution was in the neighborhood of $30,000, which is not huge, but is an order of magnitude larger that $3,000, and c)I believe it’s spelled “Merck”.
Bachmann – grrr
“To have innocent little 12-year-old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong.” Well maybe in a perfect world Michele, but humans now live in densities that our ancestors never experienced, so disease control is something that – for the good of all – the state has to take a serious interest in, as it is in EVERYONE’S interest that we prevent preventable diseases and illness from spreading.
Except in the Bachmann house I might add, were I feeling uncharitable.
One difference between HPV and the other vaccines which are mandatory for schoolkids is that the other diseases are contagious (without having sex), so it’s arguably in the direct interest to make schoolkids have the vaccine for the safety of all schoolkids. Since HPV mostly spread by sexual contact, it’s a little different vector, and the state’s interest is somewhat diluted.
That doesn’t smell right. Hepatitis B is on that vaccine list and it isn’t (very) contagious:
“Perinatal infection is a major route of infection in endemic (mainly developing) countries.[5] Other risk factors for developing HBV infection include working in a health care setting, transfusions, and dialysis, acupuncture, tattooing, extended overseas travel and residence in an institution. [6] [3][7] However, Hepatitis B viruses cannot be spread by casual contact, such as holding hands, sharing eating utensils or drinking glasses, breast-feeding, kissing, hugging, coughing, or sneezing.”
I see US statistics is “only” 12 % infected with hep B, so you don’t necessarily need mass vaccination to block the perinatal route.
[Though I assume it would do good in a nation with abysmal health insurance coverage. Somehow I suspect that won’t be an argument that would sway republicans.]
But bad health care or drug abuse is not S-E-X.
so it’s arguably in the direct interest to make schoolkids have the vaccine for the safety of all schoolkids.
have you considered that’s why we wait until puberty to give the vaccine to begin with?
and as to “all”…
at what point should we make the cut off that this would benefit kids?
90%?
75%?
are you gonna make that call?
no, you aren’t.
No, Bachman has risen to prominence because she articulates the emotional drives of many, many Americans. She is just an expression of their unconscious drives — fear mainly.
Americans hate science. So anything that brings evidence-based knowledge into their lives and even hints at challenging their ideologies and magical beliefs is the enemy.
Will Americans sacrifice their kids to their hatred of science — of course. Duh.
Yep, the art of rhetoric is the art of appealing to emotion. That’s how you reach believers, and believers are her base.
“Americans hate science.”
Man, you would have been laughed at if you said that in the 50s, or even up to the 70s.
this hatred of science in the US appears to be carefully manufactured.
It’s Hillary Clinton’s “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”
Republicans realized that it’s easier to get people to vote against their economic interest if they’re completely uninformed.
even easier if they’re misinformed!
My brilliant S.O. told me this morning that much anti-science sentiment in Americur was manufactured by the Russkies in the early-mid seventies, in the height of the cold war (when the space race was still being waged). I didn’t probe further on what she meant by that, but she doesn’t say stuff like this lightly (and she was big on international policy issues). I’m curious now, and will have to probe further. After that, I’ll try and find out what she meant.
S.O? forgive my ignorance…
Significant other.
ba-DUM!
Thank you, thank you… please tip your servers, etc. 😉
Here’s the thing I don’t get and can’t find my away around: would you even need to explain to a 10 year old what exactly the vaccine is for? “This prevents you from getting a certain type of cancer. Roll up your sleeve please. Here’s a lollipop.”
The idea that it will promote sexual promiscuity is stupid anyway, but considering the child will likely not even know what the vaccine is makes it even stupider.
But by the time the child gets into sex, it will find out these details.
Or if it doesn’t because people are withholding information or not repeating it, you would do the child a disservice since it needs full disclosure to make good decisions.
Even more so, since brain research seems to find parts of brain that controls the decision and oversight isn’t fully developed until the individual is ~ 20 years of age. So children need all the help they can get in that area.
Can’t all this Bachmann-Perry bickering be calmed down by teaching the controversy?
there is no controversy:
they are both dumb as hammers.
There you go. Slurring hammers for no good reason.
hey now, just because something is dumb, doesn’t mean it has no use.
I actually LIKE my hammers dumb.
I do not, however, think it a useful state for a politician.
regardless of how much it seems one COULD make an argumentum ad populum in favor….
Hammers are useful, which Bachmann and Perry are not.
You mean they’re as dumb as a box of hair.
Boxes of hair can be good for making merkins. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better than that.
I think the rationale for mandatory vaccination in this case is a lot weaker than for most other vaccines. Unlike measles, flu, etc, you cannot catch HPV from casual social contact.
If you don’t want HPV and don’t want to get the vaccine, you could (theoretically) ensure that you don’t get it by not having sex. And if you get HPV, others can avoid catching it from you by either 1) getting the vaccine, or 2) not having sex with you.
Mandatory vaccination is generally enforced by imposing restrictions on what you can do if you are not vaccinated: the most important being that you are prevented from enrolling in public schools and colleges. There is a strong rationale behind these sanctions: if not vaccinated, you are more likely to get the disease, and then unintentionally and unknowingly transmit the disease to just about anyone you have casual social contact with. Other than everyone else encasing themselves in a bubble 24/7, there is little they can reasonably do to completely eliminate their risk. Thus, there are good public health reasons for violating someone’s liberty and making them get a (minor) medical treatment under the thread of government sanction for most vaccines that are now commonly required. But HPV is different.
IOW, although the reasons they give for opposing *mandatory* vaccination for HPV are bogus, that does not mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to view HPV as different from most other diseases that we vaccinate against. And it is not unreasonable to argue that those differences undercut the usual rationale for violating someone’s liberty.
In the real world the percentage of people that will permanently avoid sex is not significant.
But all Christian girls and boys will avoid sex until marriage so Christian children don’t need the vaccine 😉
Yep, “those catholic girls start much too late.” I should know, I married one.
Um, sex _is_ “casual social contact”, or at least it can be.
Moreover, having sex is more common than not having it. (Well, duh!) It would be irrational and irresponsible to expect people to abstain, inform others, et cetera.
If enough people could do this without the vaccine, we wouldn’t need the vaccine, the disease would go extinct. But we do see it, so they don’t do it.
Now you can argue that the individual have rights (one’s liberty) that the population has not. I guess that depends on what nation you live in. Here [Sweden] vaccinations are strictly voluntarily – but we also have little problem with people opting out, so far.
In addition to what Darrell and Torbjörn have written, there’s a huge problem with your ‘method for avoiding HPV no. 2.’ Someone infected might not know it, or might not tell their sexual partner.
If you don’t want HPV and don’t want to get the vaccine, you could (theoretically) ensure that you don’t get it by not having sex.
theoretically….
so even you’re not sure about your conclusions.
so, you really expect it to be a realistic consideration that kids will 100% not have sex because of a fear of HPV?
really?
well, say you think it could be 40% even…
what about the other 60%?
what happens to the other 40% who abstained as a teen… do they always then abstain out of fear of getting hpv from the other 60?
yes, what you are asking us to do is avoid sex out of fear, among other irrational notions you have put forward without apparently realizing it.
getting REALLY tired of supposedly rational individuals not even TRYING to think this through.
I get REALLY tired of supposedly rational individuals not understanding the issue and making snarky comments based on their misunderstanding.
The issue is this: what is needed to justify violating someones liberty and forcing them (under threat of government sanction) to get a vaccine to prevent them from contracting a particular disease? In the case of measles, rubella, chickenpox, etc, the case can be made that 1) the social and medical cost, 2) the ease at which one can contract these diseases from casual social contact with any other person (i.e., our relative inability to protect ourselves against carriers), and 3) the value of herd immunity from having a high fraction of the population immunized more than justifies (IMO) a goverment mandate. But HPV does not, IMO.
My choice was to have my family members who are targets for this vaccine get the vaccine. And I would personally argue to pursuade anyone considering it to get it. But that was my choice, and I think it is the best one for everyone to make. But I won’t put a metaphorical gun to someones head to make them do it in this particular situation, because their failure to get it mostly is putting themselves at risk. Again: the vaccine is supposed to be very very effective, so anyone who wants to not get it can get the vaccine. And I am not (and those in my family that got the vaccine are not) put at risk by 99.9999% of the people who don’t get the vaccine.
I get REALLY tired of supposedly rational individuals not understanding the issue and making snarky comments based on their misunderstanding.
project much?
what is needed to justify violating someones liberty
this is where your argument fails right off the bat.
how is it NOT violating someone else’s liberty to be a disease carrier?
this is one major reason we have laws to begin with, right? So that I can’t interfere with your right to exist to begin with.
it’s also why vaccinations are mandatory for school kids.
all you’ve done is restate your argument, nearly word for word, and not added anything new, and not addressed the obvious concerns I raised.
so, yeah, I stand by what I said. You’re not adding anything to the discussion.
You may be interested in my comment in thread 2, above.
irrelevant.
sorry, but the mode of transmission is simply not relevant to the argument of required vaccination.
I agree unreservedly, Ichthyic. Yet this is the second thread I saw which starts off by making a distinction on the basis of sexual contact – offering supposedly “legitimate” reasons for not instituting mandatory vaccination. I addressed that concern somewhat in my previous comment. Therefore it IS relevant.
One way around that non-argument is to point out that not all transmission equals sex. It offers a way to try to defuse it without merely resorting to saying to the Christer crowd “no, you’re wrong about your idiot, prudish values.” In most places in the country, that one doesn’t fly. It takes a zillion reasons, from all sides, to counter the lunacy that passes for thought here in the States.
If an HIV vaccine was available tomorrow, I bet there would be much less resistance to blanket, mandatory vaccinations than what we see with HPV. And HIV is incredibly more focal in its modes of transmission (that is, easier to avoid). We’re fighting a punitive mindset here, and I’ve personally witnessed the destruction of one of the best STD programs in the world due to “roses needing their thorns” to keep people in line. It’s idiocy.
Rape happens.
Im confused, I thought HPV was completely incurable?
http://wartrolandhpv.blogspot.com/
incurable.. but preventable
only if you get vaccinated before you have sex, say when you’re about 12 years old
Podphyllin Resin can, in many cases, remove the warts and in fewer cases without another outbreak, ever. Depends on how aggressive you are, how soon you recognize the wart, and your tolerance for tissue damage around the site. The virus may still be there, but the outward symptom is gone. The vaccine is still the best choice, though I wonder why boys aren’t receiving the vaccine also. HPV can lead to penile cancer too, but the rate is likely much lower than in cervical, which is understandable just from the ease of recognizing the wart is present and dealing with it.
I wonder why boys aren’t receiving the vaccine also.
there has been a lot of discussion about that, but I haven’t seen a general conclusion reach yet as to why that is.
most likely one I saw was that they wanted to focus on the highest risk group first, and then expand.
Some also mentioned that the studies on potential side effects in boys/men had not been fully fleshed out yet.
It’s been coming along:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204142257.htm
All adolescents should be vaccinated. Aside from the epidemiological logic of vaccinating all carriers, and the apparent health benefits to males as well, there’s an economic side. Currently, at least in state where it’s not mandatory, this set of three injections is quite pricey and comes out of the family’s pocket. Increase the market, reduce the price. Hopefully.
(Plus–fundies seem to have fewer problems with the idea of boys having sex…)
Fundies have a big problem with premarital sex, but are more forgiving of boys than girls, so I do agree with you in a sense.
However, all of society seems to have fewer problems with boys having sex, which is why female statutory rapists were seldom dealt with at all and now simply receive less punishment than their male counterparts. Worse, if the rapist becomes pregnant and has the child, the boy may be liable for child support while the rapist keeps physical custody of the child.
The latter reason the best to hold off on vaccinating boys.
Any of the girls not vaccinated, or the few where it doesn’t take, will still be at great risk until both sexes are covered. Thus my original question.
Uh, just a small point, I’ve read Orac on anti-vaxxers for a long time now, and he clearly lays it out as more a left-of-center phenomenon while still cutting across the political spectrum, though he does try to dance around it. Read the last two paragraphs of his post on Bachmann. (I do agree that the Republicans have moved to far to the anti-science side, though I may disagree over specifics.)
Tribalism is always rather ugly when it projects all faults to the other tribe.
the point isn’t that antivaxxers are a specific political orientation…
it’s that it is clearly the Republican party that seems to have no problems utilizing, and even promoting, people’s irrational fears to motivate them to vote.
I’m sure in Bachman’s mind, aside from whatever antivax sentiments she herself has, her point is to motivate antivaxxers to vote for her instead of Perry.
Exactly. They could give a fuck about reality. Apparently any lie in their quest for power & money does not faze them at all. This is true for some percentage of people in all categories, but it is endemic in the current republican party.
I don’t know _whose_ point (or not-point) you are referring to here.
Jerry’s point (I think) was that religious sex-anxiety was the root issue when it comes to the Bachmannesque hostility to HPV vaccination programs. That might be true in this case but it is also possible that what we have here is your run-of-the-mill generic anti-vax irrationality, a form of bad thinking found across the political spectrum.
Which is not to deny the motives of Republican politicians. Their specialty is fear-mongering. It would be simply entertaining to watch them try to out-stupid each other, if the stakes weren’t so high.
First of all my point wasn’t that anti-vaxxers are all Democrats, only that it isn’t a right-center issue, which is where most of you needed to put it to continue you’re own bias. Orac points out that the weight seems to be in the affluent and liberal areas of the country, more blue than red if you like that silliness. But he dances around the logical conclusion…
Next, politicians pander to their bases and all politicians make emotional pleas, all politicians distort reality to win, and all politicians are out for power & money. They are sophists by nature, lawyers by training, and Shakespeare may have been right.
I remember that during the Republican attempts to modify Social Security, Democratic politicians went to Senior citizens telling them that Republicans were trying to take Social Security away from them. Yet, not one of the proposed plans had anything to do with Seniors on SS, would not effect them one bit, and was ten years away. An irrational, emotional, and deceitful ploy used on a bloc that votes more often than any other bloc.
It is used by both parties, only the subject changes. Confirmation bias can erode rational thought.
As for this being proof of Republican perfidy, you take one candidate (the only one), ascribe that to all candidates, then all the party, and sit back and pride yourselves on being rational? For godsake, she was attacking another Republican for doing just what you want…
She’s a nut. Like Jenna.
Go to The Agitator and clear your heads, he points out the hypocrisy of both sides. No, I’m not a Libertarian.
As for this being proof of Republican perfidy, you take one candidate (the only one), ascribe that to all candidates, then all the party, and sit back and pride yourselves on being rational?
yes, because it isn’t just this one case example, or ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND?
oh, and as to the whole social security issue.
I have two words for your attempt at history revision:
Lock.
box.
“yes, because it isn’t just this one case example, or ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND?”
You do realize the irony in this? It was my point exactly regarding both parties. Only the subject changes.
I have little to no emotional investment in political parties, you may have too much. Mote log.
As for “lock box” how would an utterly fictional concept, with no basis in reality other than political pandering, have anything to do with what I wrote?
This is seriously OT so we should either limit this thread to a few more comments or just agree to disagree
There is one Republican who unambiguously accepts the consensus of 98% of climate scientists (and he unelectable in the GOP primaries) and several who unabashedly chirp about their “disbelief of evolution”. A large segment of the party is now so far into nutcase territory that it’s ridiculous. An attempt to paint this as a “both sides do it” balance of insanity situation is bullshit.
The only reasonable disagreement one can have with Jerry’s analysis is his prioritization of Bachmann’s motives. It is, of course, quite possible that Bachmann is more concerned with the fact that she thinks Rick Perry is politically vulnerable on the HPV issue and that, more than her own religious idiocy, is what is motivating her to spout the crap she’s spouting.
Tim,
My points had nothing to do with what you wrote, unless you would like to say Democrats so seldom use fear-mongering, so seldom use misleading statements (or quote-mining), misleading facts, emotional anecdotal pleas, and never pander to their perceived base, so its moot?
My very first point was that the weight of anti-vaxxers is more left-of-center than right of center, while not ignoring the right-of-center element. Orac lays it out in his post on Bachmann. Which was of course ignored.
I agree she is an idiot, on more subjects than you addressed.
Your points had everything to do with what I wrote. For example, you said,
The Republican party chose their base. 50 years ago, there may have been more Democrats among scientists than Republicans, but science was not a “liberal” pursuit. The polarization now is virtually complete. Only 6% of scientists in te US identify themselves as Republicans – and it isn’t because scientists changed. It was the Republicans who decided to hitch their wagon to dominionist christian nutbags and creationists. It is the Republicans who decided to make climate change denial a signature part of their platform.
All politicians tend to serve their constituencies, but there are a lot of different constituencies out there to choose from when political strategists decide to assemble coalitions. The current coalition in the GOP is as crazy and corrupt as any we’ve seen ion modern history.
Tim, again my post had nothing to do with what you wrote. You interpreted and ran with it, something creationists do well and you shouldn’t do. But since you did…
First, the claim that “scientists” didn’t change isn’t supportable without studies supporting your claim, because you’ve moved from science to politics (they’re different disciplines, at least in every college I can think of, perhaps you can come up with one where they aren’t). If the Wiki is correct 40% of Democrats don’t believe in evolution either (40% is better than 68% but really do you want to belong to a party where, OMG, almost 1 out of 2 are creationists?, how can you rationally survive the pain?). Frankly, both should drive scientists from the USA to Europe, but most people, even scientists, aren’t one issue. They actually weigh things, maybe even rationally.
I wrestle with the issue of fellow Americans being so stupid, both Democrat and Republican, everyday, but I’m not so moronic as to believe I should hang everything to one issue so I vote over all the issues. Nor should I judge people on one issue (unless they advocate lying, cheating, stealing, or judging people’s overall intelligence or rationality on one issue).
Now as for Dominionists, get real. That is such a small subset of Christian Fundies that you have to be a nut to even bring it up regarding Republicans (hey, how about those in the 40% of Democrats), you’d just as well call Democrats Socialists or Commies(you do know one of the front running Republicans is a Mormon, don’t you?). Or you had just as well go into Alinsky territory with Obama, or Afro-Centrism.
And yes I’d agree with you that Republicans lean to creationism. 68% to 40%, which I find disheartening because it means a sizable portion of both parties are creationists, one form or the other.
As for Bachmann, maybe she is a Dominionist or maybe not. I had a good friend that was a Wobbly and a couple of friends that were CPUSA. Loved arguing with them, even loved their arguments, but it didn’t make me either.
My own opinion, she’s an idiot and nut, but so is Boxer, so there. Pelosi was right about the Universal Health Care bill, though unknowingly stupid (you really don’t know what’s in it until all the bureaucrats decide what the law actually means and what penalties should be imposed. I saw this with RCRA promulgation).
(this comment is a product of editing to which and where I can’t take responsibility for brevity or exacting coherence, or that the Democratic party has 40% of its members who are creationists. I almost hate creationists, so I should almost hate Republicans more than almost hating Democrats. Go well with you?)
Again – you’ve missed the point. There are anti-vaxxers among Democrats (probably more than among the GOP, I’ll take your guess as plausible). There are creationists among Democrats (probably fewer than among Republicans, given the Bible-belt base of the GOP). What the Democratic party has not done is to adopt anti-vax planks in their platforms, official or unofficial. There have not been, to my knowledge, large numbers of prominent Democrats who have adopted anti-vax views under pressure from anti-vaxxers. The same is true, to my knowledge, concerning scientific issues. How many Democrats would raise their hands and proudly proclaim their disavowal of evolution? Climate science? Has the Democratic party decided to shift its position to woo these morons?
Obviously, I generally vote Democratic, but I would never register as anything but an independent, just in case a sane Republican comes along I happen to prefer for whatever reason. Every once in while in the past century, the Democratic party has had the integrity to make political sacrifices that were electorally damaging. LBJ sacrificed the south to pass civil rights legislation he predicted would cost the Dems the south for a generation (more, actually). I can’t think of the last time the GOP has changed course in a manner I could admire.
The current advantage of the GOP seems to me to be this: the wealthy are overwhelmingly GOP and I suspect they don’t believe half or even most of what they nutbags believe. What they know is that no matter how much trouble the nutbags make, it won’t affect them (the rich). Should the nutbags get personhood granted to newly fertilized ova, who cares if your rich? The elite (Democrat or Republican) have now so nearly obliterated the rule of law, that they know that thery can get away with just about anything…and for those things laws they can’t ignore – well, just legalize the corruption or, if more convenient, go elsewhere (to get your daughter’s abortion, for example).
I doubt we actually disagree on all that much, I just think you’re underestimating how much further along the path the GOP is – but I won’t argue that they’re not dragging the Democrats with them.
One more thing … if you expect to get charitable interpretations of what you say (e.g, dominionists are negligible) then you shouldn’t argue the small stuff either (e.g., the claim that “scientists” didn’t change isn’t supportable without studies supporting your claim). I am a scientist, I know many colleagues who are twenty years older, and although I would “need a study” to make my claim in a treatise on the subject, I rather think that here in a comment thread it is you who should support any claims to the contrary.
I simply don’t believe Bachman’s story. It just proves her point far too well. Why hasn’t the media looked into this more closely. Her campaign is getting desperate. Can’t wait for that under 2 dollar a gallon gas she’s going to get us.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.html
“These days, sexual activity of young people is something one can reasonably expect”
Jerry, in saying this you have pinpointed a dismayingly widespread characteristic of the nutbar rethuglicans: their love, their yearning, their longing for return to a more innocent time and/or society. A more innocent time/society that suffers the very serious defect that it never existed, except in the deluded minds of a bunch of idiots.
Presented with your statement, I’m quite sure the Michele Bachmanns of the world would huff about “well, they shouldn’t”. But that is utterly unrealistic; like it or not, many of the kids will have sex in their teens and Ms. Bachmann and her ilk can’t do a damned thing about it.
We need to purge our political vocabularies of “ought”. We need to accept that life involves many things we don’t personally approve of, but those things will happen anyway.
And thus, not only should the HPV vaccine be mandatory, as it is becoming, but children need to be taught about human sexuality, early and often, and in detail, so the lessons take thanks to repetition. They need to know “this is a penis, this is a vagina, this is a condom, and this is how they all fit together.”
But, no, our dear deluded right wingers are so obsessed with trying to fit society into a mould it will never, ever fit that they don’t care if they cause collateral damage in the form of VD, undesired pregnancies, even death among kids willfully kept in ignorance.