Discussing the HPV vaccine controversy in an interview after last night’s debate, Michele Bachmann told CNN’s John King that “The problem is, again, a little girl doesn’t get a do-over: once they have that vaccination in their body, once it causes its damage, that little girl doesn’t have a chance to go back.” This morning, Bachmann clarified her remarks on the Today show, saying that the HPV vaccine “can have very dangerous side effects,” including perhaps mental retardation, and that the vaccine “could potentially be a very dangerous drug.”
With these remarks, Representative Bachmann has gone too far — irresponsibly aligning herself with the paranoid anti-vaccine fringe that has garnered so much attention in recent years for its celebrity-hyped lies about the dangers of vaccines.
There are legitimate criticisms to make about HPV vaccination, and Representative Bachmann and Senator Santorum made some of them during the debate.
First, Governor Perry erred in using an executive order to mandate HPV vaccination rather than pursuing a legislative route. In several of the states where mandatory vaccination was raised in the legislature, it was defeated. Governor Perry has repeatedly said he regrets not pursuing a legislative route.
Second, one could reasonably argue that mandatory HPV vaccination is tantamount to conceding that children will engage in risky sexual behavior. This is the case made by most of the critics of HPV vaccination; it is comparable to the conservative arguments against mandatory sex ed in schools. While proponents of mandatory HPV vaccination and sex ed have argued that they are both essential matters of public health, opponents maintain that — notwithstanding opt-out provisions — they represent an improper government involvement in private sexual mores.
Third, the case could also be made that the vaccination mandate is an example of corporate welfare, or as Bachmann put it during last night’s debate, “crony capitalism.” At the very least, there is reason to be concerned about the revolving door between politics and the pharmaceutical industry. (This lobbying for HPV vaccination is still going on: You may have even seen the advertisements in newspapers as the industry has been pushing in recent months for the vaccination of school-age boys who, even though they obviously cannot get cervical cancer, can still carry human papillomavirus.)
Finally, as Jonah notes, one could argue that Governor Perry’s rhetoric in defense of his vaccination policy — “I am always going to err on the side of life” — opens the door to all manner of government overreach. Rick Perry is no Mike Bloomberg, but that is the sort of line that the New York mayor might trot out to justify some new dietary ban.
Those are all fair policy criticisms of mandatory HPV vaccination. But in making claims about the safety of the vaccines, Representative Bachmann has gone far, far off-point. All vaccines have the potential, no matter how small, to cause illness, adverse reactions, or side effects. But, as Henry Miller points out, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that either of the HPV vaccines now on the market, Merck’s Gardasil or GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix, has any of the dangerous effects that Bachmann describes.
It is right and proper that government requires, as a matter of public health, certain kinds of vaccines. Vaccination has saved millions of lives; it is unquestionably one of the greatest successes of modern medicine. Fortunately, the anti-vaccination movement has remained on the fringes of our public life. Its central claims about the dangers of vaccines — like the claim that vaccines have been responsible for the rising number of autism diagnoses — have been thoroughly, repeatedly, rigorously debunked. With her comments about the HPV vaccine in the past day, Representative Bachmann has associated herself with this irresponsible movement. She should run, not walk, to retract her remarks.
— Adam Keiper is the editor of The New Atlantis and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
There was an opt-out. Bachmann is engaging in hackstastic demagoguery. It's really making me made because on most other things I like her. I think she's lost my vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse*mad
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if nothing else, the re-debate about the issue sure raises awareness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. Apparently she's going after some of Ron Paul's base. I've got a niece with autism and the kind of stupid dreck people said to her parents when the vaccine scare went on was shameful. Madame Bachmann needs to adjust her tinfoil beanie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy son has autism; I have no regrets about having him vaccinated. He was being vaccinated against life threatening diseases. Autism is very difficult but it is not life threatening.
While having no regrets, I’m not offended by people expressing concerns to me that there might be a link between vaccines and autism.
Given that we have no idea what causes autism I'm surprised, by all the vaccine + autism = bat crazy.
Sure Jenny McCarthy is bat crazy, but a possible link with autism and vaccines in some children is not bat crazy. Until we know what causes autism, we cannot rule out anything.
– Still get your children vaccinated, because a child on the autism spectrum is a blessing as much as a child not on the spectrum. I love both my children and consider them both blessing from God.
I always do what I think well even when it seems silly like putting a helmet on a 5 year old riding a bike with training wheels.
I personally do not know what to decide about HPV, but I do not think it should be mandated. It should be recommended, and it should paid for by medicaid and CHIP. Beyond that I don't know. I am sure even without a mandate most health plans would cover it without charging you $300. I don't think the state should pay for every little girl.
Bachmann seems kooky.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, considering there are many cases of unvaccinated children developing Autism, we CAN safely rule out vaccines as a trigger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo you can't. We do not know what causes autism. We do not know if there are different triggers.
The only thing you could actually say was those children did not develop autism because of a vaccine.
Given that it is a specturm disorder with different children presenting differently. We can barely diagnose it, let alone universally rule out any triggers.
For myself I am much more concerned with treatment then cause, so I am not going to make any pronoucement that cannot be proven.
If vaccines are the trigger for some children, that is unfortunate, but it was still right to have them vaccinated.
I have no idea how my son developed this disorder, and I do not care how he develop it, but a little humility is in order. We do not know what causes autism. We can barely diagnose it, it not like you can take some blood test.
JM is crazy and I question whether son is even autistic given what describes concerning his condition.
You know there is link between smoking and lung cancer, but not every case of lung cancer is caused by smoking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre we arguing from the general to the particular here, illegitimately? Just because being generally anti-vaccine is bad, and most mandated vaccines are good, does that make someone necessarily a kook for thinking that this one might be bad? Does calling something a "vaccine" put it beyond question?
No one has less time for the anti-vax crowd than me, but let's not make the leap that everyone who has concerns about *a particular vaccine* is some kind of denier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen you accuse a vaccine of being responsible for mental retardation, and there's no evidence, that makes you a denier.
Bachmann told a lie for political advantage against another conservative, and an anti-science lie to boot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDunsworth, to answer your questions, yes, any questioning of the vaccine schedule or a particular vaccine makes you anti-vaccine. Welcome to the club, the bar is open. Personally, I think the US vaccine schedule is bloated (we vaccinate a lot more than any other first world country to no apparent benefit) and I question whether it is necessary to, among other things, vaccinate against Chicken Pox or whether it is necessary to give the Hep-B vaccine to newborns (unless the mother is positive for Hep-B). Personally, I think the case for Gardisil at 12 is much stronger than the case for Hep-B for a newborn. I also don't the safety of giving infants and toddlers multiple separate vaccines in one sitting has been sufficiently established and until they are, an alternate schedule that spreads vaccines out more is an appropriate option. You'll notice, that no where did I say I'm against vaccines, but these positions are enough to label one anti-vaccine even though I'm largely in favor of vaccination as a public health policy. That said, I think Bachmann overreached with the retardation comments. It may well be that brain damage is a possible, if rare side effect of Gardasil (I don't know, but some vaccines list it as a possible side-effect), but the reality is, any questioning of vaccine safety is going to get you labeled a wacko, if just is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Personally, I think the US vaccine schedule is bloated (we vaccinate a lot more than any other first world country to no apparent benefit)..."
The interesting thing about the so-called "Too many, too soon" theory proponents is that there's no rational basis for it. OK, so what SHOULD our vaccine schedule look like? Should we cap childhood vaccinations to five? How about 10? Ten is a nice round number! The problem is that there no scientifically reproducible data to show any benefit to reduced or delayed vaccination schedules in infants or children. The logic of the "too many" school of thought reminds me of the scene in Amadeus when Mozart debuts a musical work for the Emperor of Austria and afterwards the Emperor tells the composer that he liked the work, but there are "simply too many notes" and suggests that he "just cut a few". Mozart then draws gasps by daring to ask "Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?"
It's perfectly fine to debate the benefit of a given novel vaccine, but there has to be some sort of empirical basis for a position besides an arbitrary "gut feeling."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Perry wanted to prevent women from getting cervical cancer" is just not a winning argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...why?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen please propose an alternative. I'm really curious to see what you come up with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't you understand that the implicit thing here is that if a woman engages in sexual activity -- with or without her consent -- and she gets cancer, then that's just God's way of sorting her out?
That's why Bachmann arguing this is so outrageous. She really ought to know better, but she doesn't have HPV, and she has really good healthcare on the taxpayer dime, so has the luxury of proposing to legislate mortal punishment for other women for moral reasons. This is so far away from what the Tea Party started about, it would be funny if it wasn't serious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Don't you understand that the implicit thing here is that if a woman engages in sexual activity -- with or without her consent -- and she gets cancer, then that's just God's way of sorting her out?"
That's pretty much it.
Lest we forget: a young woman could well be virginal on her wedding night... and yet her husband doesn't have to be - and carry into the consummation all kinds of baggage. It happens more often than not nowadays. Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical?
It takes two to tango.
A responsible parent would hedge their bets against cancer - and for their daughter's health.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell said on all counts,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm no Bachmann supporter, but I think Perry boosters are trying to turn this debate into the legitimacy of vaccination.
I highly doubt that Bachmann is some sort of Jenny McCarthy dingbat that refused to vaccinate all her children.
My concern over the Guardasil controversy has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of vaccinations and EVERYTHING to do with statism, liberty, and corruption.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat state did you say you lived in? Perhaps one of Obama's 51st through 57th states? Evidently it is a state that does not mandate child vaccination for Hepatitis B. You know, the sexually transmitted one? Your concern over Gardasil (correct spelling) has nothing to do with the facts or common sense. Perhaps you can get a job with the Bachmann campaign before it implodes. Oops! Too late.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo TiberCon, are you saying you support Perry's failed attempt to mandate Gardasil?
Why then did he apologize for trying to make it mandatory?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse