More than an hour into last night’s debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann attacked Gov. Rick Perry on the HPV vaccination controversy — or more accurately pseudo-controversy. It stems from an executive order issued by Perry in 2007 that required all Texas girls to receive Gardasil, a vaccine against the most common strains of human papilloma virus, before entering the sixth grade. However, Texas lawmakers blocked that mandate. Some critics argued that the vaccine was too new to have been confirmed safe, while others said that Perry’s order would preempt parental rights or give girls a false sense of security, possibly causing them to become sexually active at a young age.
Bachmann alluded to the Perry’s executive order mandating the exposure of young girls to a “dangerous” vaccine and tried to distinguish Gardasil from other required pediatric vaccines that prevent infectious diseases. Note to Bachmann: The vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil, prevents infection with the most common strains of human papilloma virus. Once established, these viruses can ultimately cause genital warts as well as cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. Thus, by preventing the infection, the vaccine prevents all those sequelae.
In the extensive clinical studies (on more than 20,000 girls and women) that were performed prior to the FDA’s licensing of the vaccine, the vaccine was 100 percent effective, a virtually unprecedented result. How safe is the vaccine? No serious side effects were detected; the most common side effect is soreness, redness and swelling in the arm at the site of the injection.
In summary, Gardasil has one of the most favorable risk-benefit ratios of any pharmaceutical.
Having spent 15 years at the FDA and having seen regulation — the good, the bad and the ugly — up close, I am as opposed to anyone (except perhaps Ron Paul) to non-essential government intrusion into our lives. But some interventions are good. Among those I would include vaccination against childhood diseases and compulsory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
I am discouraged by politicians who not only don’t know much about science, technology, or medicine (which is perhaps understandable) but also don’t know what they don’t know (which is unacceptable).
Here’s my advice to the presidential hopefuls: If you’re not sure of the facts, keep quiet.
— Henry I. Miller, M.D., is Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy & Public Policy Hoover Institution.
Here's my advice to commentators: if you favor "compulsory use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets" go post on Kos or the Huffington Post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. I'm a conservative and I welcome the viewpoint that motorcycle helmet laws and vaccination campaigns are worthy government initiatives.
Do you REALLY believe that someone is irresponsibly far to the left, a la Kos or HuffPost, if they believe in the appropriateness of seatbelt laws? I mean, honestly, you sound stark raving insane.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou mean he's a Ron Paul supporter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot necessarily "irresponsibly far to the left, a la Kos", but yes, anybody who holds that motorcycle helmet laws are "worthy government initiatives" is far closer to Kos than they are to the ideals of liberty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSelf-identifying conservatives need to start making their positions philosophically consistent. If you admit the moral authority of the government to require seatbelt or helmet use, then you have no principled justification for opposing, say, Mayor Bloomberg's restrictions on salt and trans fat, or the individual mandate. You're left with arbitrary preference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllesnarf,
Your logic fails.
A car or motorcycle is used on a road, which is maintained by and owned by some government agency. Thus the legislature has the obligation to set safety standards for the use of this road.
My diet is not a matter of concern to a government authority, since I am not (yet) the property of any governmental agency.
As to Gardasil, as I have posted, it's a life saving vaccine. My daughters (10 and 17) have had it. Mr Perry was utterly right to demand it in Texas; one can only quibble about his mode of doing so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the contrary, your logic fails. Safety standards relate to the danger posed by one person to another, not to the danger one person chooses to take on with respect to himself. A person who chooses to go without a helmet or seatbelt is only hurting himself (and please don't give me any sophistries about insurance rates). It's paternalism, pure and simple. Exactly the same as what Bloomberg's doing.
Your last paragraph really gives away the game. Right after you say that your diet is of no concern to the government, you turn around and say that Gov. Perry is right to impose vaccinations because they're "life saving"! Amazing. Your diet is no concern of the government, but your daughters' sex lives are?
You're clearly forming your opinions in an unprincipled manner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNope. I'm principled, perhaps even virtuous.
The principle is protecting public health by eradicating transmissible infections. Vaccines protect the population against infectious diseases. Girls who have hPV give it to boys who give it to other girls; a chain of transmission that is halted by vaccination, thus protecting the population.
One thinks of pertussis, small pox, now hPV...it is only the fact that girls' sexuality is involved that has anyone give a hoot about Gardasil.
My outrageous cholesterol level will not give a heart attack to anyone else. My hPV might give warts or cancer to my lover. Different situation.
We on the right need to grow up, admit that sexually transmitted diseases are in fact infectious diseases, and review the wealth of data showing the effectiveness of the vaccine in question.
Other commentators have shown that Mr Perry did, in fact, have the authority to do what he did. He may have miscalculated--I think so--but let's not drop the guy for making a hard decision in the public good.
I haven't had to do a cone biopsy on a woman under 30 in 5 years. The vaccine works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing principled has little to do with being virtuous, except to the extent that intellectual consistency is itself a virtue.
How does "protecting public health" relate to seatbelt and helmet laws?
More generally, "protecting public health" is not a principle. A principle might be, "the State has the moral authority to mandate or forbid anything that, in its good-faith judgment, will improve or protect public health". But that's clearly not YOUR principle, since you reject dietary rules, which have far greater effects on public health than the HPV vaccine.
So what is your principle, stated in general terms of the relationship between the individual and the State? My principle is that the State has no moral authority to mandate or restrain except to protect other citizens and their property, and that even in that case the prohibition would have to be on the harm-causing behavior, not a mandate that is intended to disable people from possibly causing harm in the future. Do you have a principle that you can articulate? Or are you, as I suspect, just reacting to issues based on your gut and retroactively coming up with justifications that seem to work at the time?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's weird. For a second there, I read this comment and thought I accidentally went to Reason.com.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehahaha! Amen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat's right! and anybody else who disagrees has to answer to Allesnarf! round these parts we all agree and we don't want nobody confusin' us with arguments and whatnot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe didn't make an argument. He just asserted that seatbelt and helmet laws are "good". And yes, NR is a journal of opinion. People invited to write on NRO should be articulating conservative positions. That clearly doesn't mean that there's no disagreement, but it does mean that I don't expect to see articles extolling, say, socialized medicine or trans-fat bans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you Dr. Miller for proving to me why Bachmann is not even worth thinking about as a candidate. She's a buffoon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI bet she's smarter than you NK. And I'm not even a fan of hers. Stop looking down your nose at people who couldn't care less what Jon Stewart or the hipster next door thinks about them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe points are:
1. Mandating over the wishes of the parents
2. Using executive authority and not bringing it to the people's representatives in the legislature
3. His chief of staff's ties to the vaccine's maker, Merck
The point is not about the efficacy of the vaccine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour first point is moot, there was an out. Your second point is fine, but note he said he made a mistake and apologized. The third point is meaningless unless you can show corruption. And your last comment is wrong, because last night Bachmann made it's safety an issue as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. there was an opt out, very dishonest to keep phrasing it that way.
2. Texas provides that power for the governor. He was well within his rights to exercise it and the legislature was within their's to override him.
3. Means nothing. People leave gov't all the time and go to private sector firms that lobbied them. Show real proof of anything untoward.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) No mandate (with opt-out), no payday for Merck and Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff and lobbyist for Merk on the Texas Gardasil Mandate project.
2) Going to the legislature means no mandate. No mandate, no payday for Merck and Mike Toomey.
3) Crony capitalism/corporatism does mean something. Conservatives don't like it. It is a political liability for Perry.
Merck's Gardasil marketing plan was to get state mandate programs in place then leverage those programs to get a federal mandate.
This one issue raises so many conservative red flags. I hope people like Dr. Miller stop putting their heads in the sand just because it stomps on their favorite industry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Bergquist, I don't know Dr Miller, but I applaud his arguments. I, Dr Robert, a simple gynecologist, favor public health measures that save lives and contribute to the extinction of loathsome diseases.
Seen any smallpox lately? Pertussis? Tetanus? Rubella? Thank your vaccines.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse