Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
It Don't Matter Who's in Austin, Rick Perry Is Still the King
Last week Maryland avoided an ill-conceived scheme to mandate the HPV vaccine. Now Texas has moved in the opposite direction.
From the AP's report:
Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer....Perry also directed state health authorities to make the vaccine available free to girls 9 to 18 who are uninsured or whose insurance does not cover vaccines. In addition, he ordered that Medicaid offer Gardasil to women ages 19 to 21....
Merck [which makes the vaccine] is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.
Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.
The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.
Here's the strangest part of the story:
The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it, said Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody. Moody said the Texas Constitution permits the governor, as head of the executive branch, to order other members of the executive branch to adopt rules like this one.
It sure sounds to me like Perry is writing legislation here, not just issuing an order about how the existing laws should be enacted. And even if the order itself is constitutionally legit, I can't see why the legislature wouldn't be able to overrule it with a new bill. But I don't know much about Texas law. Could Moody's claim possibly be true?
Timothy|2.5.07 @ 10:19AM|#
As far as I know, it'd be about the only think the governor is actually able to do. And, frankly, this is one of the less stupid things Perry has done in his tenure. It's nice to know he's more than just an empty suit beneath a perfectly molded mane.
|2.5.07 @ 10:23AM|#
It's nice to know he's more than just an empty suit beneath
a perfectly molded mane.
Somehow, I don't find much comfort in the discovery that he's an
authoritarian nanny-stater beneath a perfectly molded mane.
Robert|2.5.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Gee, and for years (especially when Ann Richards was running
against GWB) we heard about how Texas has a weak governor -- the
office, not the person. For instance, s/he can't veto bills. But
that doesn't mean they couldn't have certain "gotcha" powers like
this. If I had the time I'd use Findlaw on the Texas constitution
to check it out. Hey, don't they pay you for that, Jesse?
I still think it's ridiculous they want to routinely vaccinate
little children vs. hepatitis B. It's so weird that at the same
time there's a significant and somewhat wacky anti-vaccine
movement, the country has also gone vaccine crazy.
Jesse Walker|2.5.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Hey, don't they pay you for that, Jesse?
Congratulations: You've just discovered one of the differences
between reporting a story and throwing up a blog post.
|2.5.07 @ 10:37AM|#
For instance, s/he can't veto bills. But that doesn't mean
they couldn't have certain "gotcha" powers like this.
Hmmm, Can't veto bills, but can make executive decisions without
having to consult the legislature. It sounds somewhat familiar,
no?
Brett|2.5.07 @ 10:48AM|#
And the first girl to have a reaction to the vaccine should (and
will) sue the hell out of the state.
Damn, the H&R pillow girl is coming very close to making
H&R a NSFW site.
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 10:51AM|#
You guys are losing your touch - it took two comments before somebody used the term "nanny-stater".
|2.5.07 @ 10:57AM|#
You guys are losing your touch - it took two comments before
somebody used the term "nanny-stater".
How many comments before someone calls you a troll?
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 11:02AM|#
And the first girl to have a reaction to the vaccine should
(and will) sue the hell out of the state.
I imagine that the first girl to have a reaction will have taken
the vaccine voluntarily and will probably sue the hell out of
Merck.
Chances are HnR won't be behind that lawsuit so much,
tho:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33148.html
Actually, from a liability for side effects point of view, it may
be good to have state government involvement, because they are
liklier to provide fair compensation to those who suffer side
effects, rather than leaving side effects suffers to the vagaries
of litigation. More people will have side effects under a mandatory
scheme for sure, but at least those that do are liklier to get an
amount of money that compensates, but not excessively so. There
would be more transparency and accountability in the side effects
compensation process than if Merck has the primary responsibility
for making the compensations.
Since Merck is lobbying so hard for this, maybe they should post a
bond with the state so that there are ready funds if things go bad.
If things don't go bad, then Merck gets its money back in due
course. Hopefully the $6000 (and any other good and valuable
consideration received in hand) won't blind Gov Perry from the
usefulness of the bond as a fairness tool in a situation like
this.
Timothy|2.5.07 @ 11:04AM|#
You know me, RC. Pro-nanny state, pro-authority at every turn, man. Let's give it up for Governor Hair while we're at it! Whoo!
thoreau|2.5.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Congratulations: You've just discovered one of the
differences between reporting a story and throwing up a blog
post.
Hey, for a magazine called "Reason" I expect higher quality blog
posts!
Drink!
:)
|2.5.07 @ 11:06AM|#
took two comments before somebody used the term
"nanny-stater".
This act is the apotheosis of nanny statism. What would you call
the state compelling mandatory child vaccination for a
behavior-related disease?
Larry A|2.5.07 @ 11:06AM|#
For instance, s/he can't veto bills.
Not.
Except in the case of a bill sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, upon receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. If the governor elects to veto the bill and the legislature is still in session, the bill is returned to the chamber in which it originated with an explanation of the governor's objections. A two-thirds majority in each chamber is required to override the veto. If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within the allotted time, the bill becomes a law. If a bill is sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, the governor has until 20 days after final adjournment to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. (http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc/process_govact.html)
Anne Richards vetoed the 1993 concealed handgun license bill,
one of the things that got GWB elected governor. This year Gov.
Perry has until June 17 to veto legislation passed by the 80th
Legislature.
I'm not sure about the executive order, but it's possible. The
Texas Constitution was a reaction to the excesses of post Civil War
Reconstruction, and has its little quirks.
kaptain kirk|2.5.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Perry "Bushes" Texas, is now free to do whatever the hell he damn pleases, and would everyone else just shut up about it, jeez.
Brett|2.5.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Sam, fair point about Merck, but I still think the state would
be involved as well, as there's nothing preventing a parent from
saying in retrospect "well, I never would have done this had the
state not mandated it".
I also eagerly await the first parent who simply says "no, my
daughter is not receiving this". I assume at that point she would
not be allwoed to attend public school?
|2.5.07 @ 11:13AM|#
..And the first girl to have a reaction to the vaccine
should (and will) sue the hell out of the state.
The tax payers in Texas may have some exposure but you can bet that
Merck is completely protected at the federal level! Thank you
Senator Burr...you fucking shill!
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 11:14AM|#
This act is the apotheosis of nanny statism. What would you
call the state compelling mandatory child vaccination for a
behavior-related disease?
I agree it fits the definition of the "nanny state" slur.
My point is that the term itself is not meant as anything more than
as a thinly veiled slippery-slope dismissal, meant to discourage
discussion of a particular topic by painting anybody who disagrees
with you in a negative light.
|2.5.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"I assume at that point she would not be allwoed to attend
public school?"
Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me in the briar patch!
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 11:23AM|#
One more thing I must point out - libertarians will vigorously
defend a corporation's rights to donate as much money and throw as
much support behind elected leaders as they like. I mean, it would
be a violation of Merck's First Amendment rights if they couldn't
give Rick Perry thousands of dollars.
Then, the same libertarians will act quite appalled when that
"investment" is returned via fishy government action.
So I guess you sometimes have to pick your nanny state poison.
Timothy|2.5.07 @ 11:23AM|#
The people who are afraid of vaccines probably deserve to have their genetic line snuffed out, people who are against vaccines for "moral" reasons definitely do.
|2.5.07 @ 11:24AM|#
I don't know how Perry found time to do this between selling off State parks to housing developers and making his plans to pave a 1200 foot wide strip through the middle of the state.
|2.5.07 @ 11:26AM|#
the term itself is not meant as anything more than as a
thinly veiled slippery-slope dismissal, meant to discourage
discussion
I guess what you are trying to say is that it depends on context,
but this is the right context for it. Texans will now be further
ensconced at the teat of the state against their wishes. My guess
is that there is a Medicare/Medicaid argument to be made somewhere
(i.e. Merck has sold them an economic argument that it will cost
the state less to push through mandatory vaccinations now than to
treat cervical cancer down the road) but I have not heard it made
thus far.
Jesse Walker|2.5.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Dan: We will also defend the free speech rights of Maoists, and oppose politicians who adopt Maoist positions. I'm sure you also feel that this is an untenable contradiction.
thoreau|2.5.07 @ 11:36AM|#
I'm all in favor of the right to get this vaccine, but I have to
admit that I have some questions about the urgency of
mandating it, let alone the wisdom of subsidizing
it. In the previous thread we heard mixed responses on whether the
relevant strains of the virus can be communicated by means other
than sexual contact. I am skeptical of the claim that
cancer-causing viruses are routinely spread via toilets (although
I'm open to being proven wrong on that).
I'm generally fine with mandating vaccination against deadly
illnesses that can easily spread through the air or on desks,
doorknobs, and other very inadvertent means of contact. In such
cases, we're talking about a deadly disease that spreads without
the knowledge of either party, in a manner that the recipient did
not consent to. Since there's no way for individuals to
meaningfully control what they come into contact with, it would
make sense to mandate a reasonably priced vaccine. Yeah, we
libertarians don't like to mandate anything, but if you're
talking about events where no consent has occured, and where nobody
can be knowledgeable about what they're coming into contact with
(short of extreme measures like analyzing every doorknob), then the
standard libertarian objections become less relevant.
However, I am skeptical of the claim that this virus spreads quite
that easily. I have heard that it only spreads via acts that
(normally) occur with the deliberate consent and knowledge of both
parties. Also, while it is known that most cases of cervical cancer
are caused by this virus, the opposite is not true: Most people
carrying the virus do not get cervical cancer.
In summary, I am not convinced that this is in the same category as
smallpox.
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Dan: We will also defend the free speech rights of Maoists,
and oppose politicians who adopt Maoist positions. I'm sure you
also feel that this is an untenable contradiction.
I would be more comfortable if we had some better standards for
determining when speech shades into bribery. If all my information
about this stuff came from HnR threads then I would assume
that no liability for bribary attaches unless and until the
Governor places the cash in his freezer. At which point, and only
at which point, it becomes a bribe. The touchstone, near as I can
tell, is snarkability.
Also, much (maybe most) of the "supporting free speech" done here
at HnR is in the form of protecting speech from requiring gov't
registration and any other form of transparency.
Supporting Merck's right to give undisclosed, undeclared forms of
support to government officials is not co-extensive with supporting
Merck's right to free speech.
Of course, I can't prove that Perry is getting anything better, or
more, than the $6000, but, cuhhhhh-mmmmon.
fyodor|2.5.07 @ 11:43AM|#
One more thing I must point out - libertarians will
vigorously defend a corporation's rights to donate as much money
and throw as much support behind elected leaders as they like. I
mean, it would be a violation of Merck's First Amendment rights if
they couldn't give Rick Perry thousands of dollars.
Then, the same libertarians will act quite appalled when that
"investment" is returned via fishy government action.
So I guess you sometimes have to pick your nanny state
poison.
Your conclusion is a false dichotomy. That those whose freedom of
speech we support may use it in ways with which we don't agree is
hardly surprising, nor would it somehow justify denying them their
freedom of speech. Your logic is similar to saying that
libertarians (or liberals!) who support the freedom of
speech of rap artists are appalled when their support results in
their kids buying music full of foul language. Well maybe some may
be, but those whose support of free speech is not flimsy are okay
with the fact that the resulting speech doesn't always go where
they want it to. Otherwise it wouldn't be "free"!!
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Dan: We will also defend the free speech rights of Maoists,
and oppose politicians who adopt Maoist positions. I'm sure you
also feel that this is an untenable contradiction.
I guess our differences in this case are more that I'm not sure
that giving money to a political candidate is a form of free
speech.
Merck simply saying that citizens should be required to use their
drugs would be fine with me. But when you allow them to use money
to influence government decisions, don't be surprised when they're
successful.
fyodor|2.5.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Dan: We will also defend the free speech rights of Maoists,
and oppose politicians who adopt Maoist positions. I'm sure you
also feel that this is an untenable contradiction.
While I was typing up a wordy response to Dan T, Jesse hit the nail
on the head with concision!
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Your logic is similar to saying that libertarians (or
liberals!) who support the freedom of speech of rap artists are
appalled when their support results in their kids buying music full
of foul language. Well maybe some may be, but those whose support
of free speech is not flimsy are okay with the fact that the
resulting speech doesn't always go where they want it to. Otherwise
it wouldn't be "free"!!
I agree, but the reason we accept this is because we consider the
benefits of free speech (free exchange of ideas) to be worth the
costs (in this case, foul language).
So if you consider the cost of Merck's support of Rick Perry to be
worth the benefits of them being allowed to give money to him, then
that's great. But I don't think that's the case here.
|2.5.07 @ 11:50AM|#
"Jesse Walker | February 5, 2007, 11:29am | #
Dan: We will also defend the free speech rights of Maoists, and
oppose politicians who adopt Maoist positions. I'm sure you also
feel that this is an untenable contradiction."
*Creepy villian voice* And so, Reason Magazine contains the seeds
of its own destruction.
Exxxxxx-cellent!
thoreau|2.5.07 @ 11:59AM|#
No, joe, Reason will never be destroyed. Some musicians who
drive around in a van with a talking dog will save the
magazine.
But you would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darn
kids!
fyodor|2.5.07 @ 12:05PM|#
So if you consider the cost of Merck's support of Rick Perry
to be worth the benefits of them being allowed to give money to
him, then that's great. But I don't think that's the case
here.
Wrong. For two reasons. One is a little matter of what is known as
"principle". But leaving that debate aside and focusing on the
purely "pragmatic" aspect (I use scare quotes cause I think these
two things are usually two ways of describing the same thing), one
may feel that if the only free speech issue was whether or not
to allow foul language then perhaps the benefits wouldn't be
worth the costs (this would vary with the individual). It's because
there are larger issues to free speech than just this one example
that allowing free speech as a general principle (whoops,
see, they're really the same thing!) is worth the foul language it
sometimes results in. Likewise, allowing people (and businesses) to
use money in the petitioning and support of their representatives
as a general principle has many benefits aside from the
pros and cons of the particular example at hand.
|2.5.07 @ 12:15PM|#
"Promiscuity is the deble"
The governor of Texas had to have been fairly desperate to keep the
religious fundies at bay on this issue
given the chance, they'd rally their irrational troops by pitching
this vaccine as the work of the devil, telling kids it's okay to
have sex before marriage
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 12:16PM|#
This falls into a gray area for me. Hypothetical question: if/when an AIDS vaccine is discovered, and after it's been proven safe and effective and everything, what would your take be on a law mandating that parents vaccinate their children against AIDS? I guarantee there will be moralists opposing the vaccine for their children because it "sends the wrong message" about sex or the use of needle drugs.
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Wrong. For two reasons. One is a little matter of what is
known as "principle". But leaving that debate aside and focusing on
the purely "pragmatic" aspect (I use scare quotes cause I think
these two things are usually two ways of describing the same
thing), one may feel that if the only free speech issue was whether
or not to allow foul language then perhaps the benefits wouldn't be
worth the costs (this would vary with the individual). It's because
there are larger issues to free speech than just this one example
that allowing free speech as a general principle (whoops, see,
they're really the same thing!) is worth the foul language it
sometimes results in. Likewise, allowing people (and businesses) to
use money in the petitioning and support of their representatives
as a general principle has many benefits aside from the pros and
cons of the particular example at hand.
Fair enough, but remember my beginning point is that if you're
going to advocate a position, then you kind of have to take the bad
results along with the good ones. But libertarians seem to want to
have it both ways, and don't understand why the fantasy of a world
with no rules where everybody voluntarily behaves as if there were
rules doesn't always fit with reality.
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Whoops, forgot to mention in my last post: I'd support a law mandating AIDS vaccinations for kids.
Dan T.|2.5.07 @ 12:21PM|#
This falls into a gray area for me. Hypothetical question:
if/when an AIDS vaccine is discovered, and after it's been proven
safe and effective and everything, what would your take be on a law
mandating that parents vaccinate their children against AIDS? I
guarantee there will be moralists opposing the vaccine for their
children because it "sends the wrong message" about sex or the use
of needle drugs.
There would also be H&R commenters complaining about how the
Nanny State is robbing people of their right to contract AIDS.
|2.5.07 @ 12:26PM|#
what would your take be on a law mandating that parents
vaccinate their children against AIDS?
As I understand it the big argument for vaccinating children
against cervical cancer at an early age is not so that the can
become sexually active any earlier than they already are, but
rather the efficacy of the vaccination is tied to early
vaccination. That is what makes it such an interesting debate. If
the same applies to the mythical AIDS vaccine the debate is pretty
similar. AIDS is a behavior-related disease just like the subset of
HPV that can cause cervical cancer. I cannot see a reason for the
state to step in.
thoreau|2.5.07 @ 12:31PM|#
I've heard it both ways on early vaccination: Either it's about
ensuring that they are vaccinated before infection (either by
sexual contact or some other means, with some suggesting that it
can be spread using bathrooms and locker rooms and similar
facilities, without any intimate contact between individuals,
although that sounds dubious) and others saying that the body is
simply less responsive to the virus after a certain age.
I know that the body goes through lots of changes during puberty,
but I haven't heard much about vaccines against other diseases
being less effective in post-pubescent people. Then again, I
haven't followed it very closely.
I hear it both ways, and I would appreciate a link to some
peer-reviewed publication not produced by either a vaccine
manufacturer or government agency proposing and/or enforcing a
policy (be it a policy of mandatory vaccination or a policy of
restricted access, or whatever else).
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 12:32PM|#
AIDS is a behavior-related disease just like the subset of
HPV that can cause cervical cancer. I cannot see a reason for the
state to step in.
But calling it a behavior-related disease implies that it can
only be contracted via voluntary actions, rather than
through situations like rape. (I'm ignoring the ugly undertone that
if a kid has sex and catches a fatal disease it serves the little
slut right.)
Even if an AIDS (or HPV) vaccine was just as useful if a person
took the shot at eighteen, that doesn't help a person who caught
the disease while still a minor.
I think this is one of those cases where the parent's rights are
less important than the child's. I have no problem with an adult
Jehovah's Witness who would rather die than get a blood
transfusion, but I don't think such a person has the right to
condemn his minor child to death to avoid hurting his
religious sensibilities.
|2.5.07 @ 12:34PM|#
How many of these upset parents forbid their kids from wearing
seatbelts, out of concern that it sends the wrong message about
fast driving?
I'm betting it's zero.
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 12:35PM|#
I hear it both ways, and I would appreciate a link to some
peer-reviewed publication not produced by either a vaccine
manufacturer or government agency . . .
If it is peer-reviewed it doesn't matter who produced the study.
The peer-review scrubs away any economic bias that might otherwise
be suspected based on the circumstances. peer review is mighty
pow'rful./T. mode
fyodor|2.5.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Fair enough, but remember my beginning point is that if
you're going to advocate a position, then you kind of have to take
the bad results along with the good ones. But libertarians seem to
want to have it both ways, and don't understand why the fantasy of
a world with no rules where everybody voluntarily behaves as if
there were rules doesn't always fit with reality.
I didn't notice anyone on this thread doing what you've just
accused libertarians en masse of doing. Did you?
fyodor|2.5.07 @ 12:55PM|#
This falls into a gray area for me.
Jennifer, I think whenever parents want for their kids something
that others see as dangerous for the kids or for others, there'll
inevitably be a conflict that has no easy answer.
|2.5.07 @ 12:57PM|#
But calling it a behavior-related disease implies that it
can only be contracted via voluntary actions, rather than through
situations like rape.
I make no implication that the behavior is necessarily consensual
so you are absolutely right, it could occur through rape. But given
the extremely small percentage of the time that this is the case
for either HIV or HPV, I see no role for the state.
My daughters are 10 and 6. Needless to say my wife and I have not
even discussed sex with them. Once it is time to have that
conversation, which is pretty soon, I would be perfectly willing to
talk to her about the vaccine, I think she can make a rational
decision. By definition the state cannot, since they cannot know my
daughter's preferences and what would be in her best interests
better than she does. In a general sense I don't either, but I am
in a much better position to help her than the government and that
is my role both by biology and custody.
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Swillfredo, I'm more concerned with the kids who WOULD make a decision to take the vaccine, but the parents won't allow it due to their apparent belief that the threat of a hideous death is the only thing lying between their children and a lifetime of sluthood.
tomWright|2.5.07 @ 1:12PM|#
What I am wondering is how long it will be before the gender
discrimination suit is filed, for not requiring boys to take this
vaccine?
After all, boys can spread it even if it does not affect them the
same way.
So far as HPV being a behavior related disease, only partly
true.
I suspect those that say this think mating behaviors is completely
voluntary, but it is not. Else there would not so many humans
wandering around.
In addition, there is the problem of forced sex such as in rape and
incest.
Does this order cover children going to private schools as well? If
so there is a problem with it, I think. But if it covers only those
going to government schools then I think it is well within reason.
The governor, as the one who ultimately administers the schools is
within his authority to set the standards for entry for students,
barring any laws or Const. prohibitions to the contrary.
But that brings up the whole compulsory socialized education
system, which is another minefield.
|2.5.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Looks like we lost a battle in Maryland, but don't worry.
...we're still winning the war!
...so we can't vaccinate 'em? We can still insert the government
into all sorts of other areas--we can teach 'em about
evolution--whether their parents like it or not--we can put some
spin on how they view themselves and others sexually. We can
recruit them into our armed forces--why we can even control their
diets!
Maybe people just need a little more time. Eventually they'll let
us do anything we want--so long as they think we want what's
best.
...for the children.
|2.5.07 @ 1:19PM|#
I hear you Jennifer, but the list of things that parents already
do or do not do that could conceivably harm their children is
pretty long already. Not getting this vaccine does not necessarily
consign a girl to cervical cancer in later life.
I don't make my kids finish their milk and I let them watch the
Simpsons. If osteoporosis or general cynicism express themselves in
later years my kids will have reason to be pissed at me, but not at
the government. Unless there are externalities in common with
contagious diseases like TB or polio, and I don't see that being
the case, I think this is one more negative step in the loss of the
right to self-determination.
|2.5.07 @ 1:37PM|#
If the state can mandate that children get a vaccine for an STD
because it is in the child's best interest, can the state also
mandate that children under the age of, say, fifteen, have any
pregnancies aborted, for the same reason?
I'm just askin', is all.
|2.5.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I hear you Jennifer, but the list of things that parents
already do or do not do that could conceivably harm their children
is pretty long already. Not getting this vaccine does not
necessarily consign a girl to cervical cancer in later
life.
And as I pointed out in the thread last week, even getting the
vaccine doesn't guarantee you won't get cervical cancer.
In fact, girls who are vaccinated will still require yearly Pap
smears, and are still under the same obligation as those repressed
Christer chicks to watch who they sleep with and practice safe
sex.
What you do get for your $400 and three shots is the
knowledge that if you are stupid and sleep around, you'll have a
somewhat lower chance of getting HPV and genital warts. Which is
nice, but the risk would have been pretty much eliminated had you
been responsible in the first place.
lunchstealer|2.5.07 @ 3:10PM|#
I'm conflicted on certain levels of ideology, but typically
these 'mandatory' vaccination schemes are mandatory only to make
use of public schools. Homeschooling may be an avenue to opt out.
For infectious diseases that are airborne or pass by simple
contact, this even makes sense. Since people are required to send
their kids to some school, and the default for those who don't want
to homeschool or pay for private school is public school, you do
not want to leave people in a situation where they are required to
send their children to a school where they may be exposed to
preventable disease hazards.
This argument doesn't really hold up for HPV, since the transmition
method - sex - is unlikely to happen on school grounds (not for the
lack of trying).
However, I do see this as a fairly responsible shot-across-the-bow
of the paleoconservatives who oppose the use of this vaccine as
'promoting teen sex'. A prominent conservative governor making such
a personally accountable decision to reject this idea is a powerful
statement. By making it an executive order, he doesn't have the
usual political cover of
"oh, well, they just tacked that onto a bill that I thought was
good, so I signed it." It's a bona fide buck-stops-here moment.
Takes the wind out of the sails of the "HPV is God's way of smiting
the wicked" crowd.
|2.5.07 @ 5:11PM|#
How many of these upset parents forbid their kids from
wearing seatbelts, out of concern that it sends the wrong message
about fast driving?
I'm betting it's zero.
Back when the subject was being debated in the 70s and 80s, I was
strongly opposed to requiring that air bags be included in all
autos, given that they cost several hundred dollars each, didn't
give protection against side-impact crashes, and didn't offer
significantly more protection than just fastening your seat belt.
IOW, it seemed to be a way of requiring people to pay for
protection they could get much more efficiently by modifying their
behavior. If I had kids driving, I still wouldn't want to pay for
air bags; I'd just tell them to keep their seat belts
fastened.
I trust the parallel with mandatory HPV vaccine is evident.
(I understand that air bags are now billed as a seat belt
supplement rather than a seat belt replacement, but I haven't seen
any good information about the additional protection they are
supposed to provide. Of course, since the air bag debates of the
70s and early 80s, it has turned out that air bags, every so often,
will kill passengers, which adds a whole 'nother factor into the
cost-benefit analysis.)
|2.5.07 @ 5:11PM|#
This falls into a gray area for me
If it's a gray and thus doubtful area, why are you so apparently
certain mandatory vaccination is proper?
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 5:18PM|#
If it's a gray and thus doubtful area, why are you so
apparently certain mandatory vaccination is proper?
With my example of the AIDS vaccine, I specified a vaccine that's
proven safe and effective. With the HPV vaccine, there still might
be room for reasonable doubt in that regard.
(That said, if I had a young daughter I would have already made an
appointment for her doctor to give her this vaccine.)
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 5:55PM|#
That said, if I had a young daughter I would have already
made an appointment for her doctor to give her this
vaccine.
How vigorously would you discourage her from having extramarital
sex (when the time came)?
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 6:03PM|#
How vigorously would you discourage her from having
extramarital sex (when the time came)?
Why do you automatically assume that if my hypothetical daughter
gets married, she'll cheat on her husband?
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Why do you automatically assume that if my hypothetical
daughter gets married, she'll cheat on her husband?
That is not what I am asking. What I am asking is whether you would
try to teach her that extramarital sex is something to be avoided
(eg, when you had the birds and the bees talk).
Sam Franklin|2.5.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Maybe I should have said "non-marital sex" to avoid the semantic nonsense here.
|2.5.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Jennifer,
I take it you would support mandatory universal birth control for
adolescent girls as well, seeing as how they can get pregnant by
being raped.
|2.5.07 @ 6:22PM|#
No, joe, Reason will never be destroyed. Some musicians who
drive around in a van with a talking dog will save the
magazine.
But you would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those
darn kids!
Thoreau wins the thread, hands down.
(BTW, it's "meddling kids")
|2.5.07 @ 6:23PM|#
If I had a young daughter, I would wait a few years for the
price of the vaccine to go below $400.
A conservative Christian making everybody spend $400 for something
that will only benefit people who aren't monogamous. I wonder how
much of that $400 is going into his pocket?
Jennifer|2.5.07 @ 7:50PM|#
I take it you would support mandatory universal birth
control for adolescent girls as well, seeing as how they can get
pregnant by being raped.
Crimethink, I'm sure you can grasp the difference between pregnancy
and cancer and/or death.
What I am asking is whether you would try to teach her that
extramarital sex is something to be avoided
Why would I do that? I would, however, tell her that sex with
people you don't know very well is something to be avoided.
|2.5.07 @ 9:07PM|#
What Every Parent With A Daughter Should Know About
GARDASIL
1) GARDASIL is a vaccine for 4 strains of the human papillomavirus
(HPV), two strains that are strongly associated (and probably
cause) genital warts and two strains that are typically associated
(and may cause) cervical cancer. About 90% of people with genital
warts show exposure to one of the two HPV strains strongly
suspected to cause genital warts. About 70% of women with cervical
cancer show exposure to one of the other two HPV strains that the
vaccine is designed to confer resistance to.
2) HPV is a sexually communicable (not an infectious) virus. When
you consider all strains of HPV, over 70% of sexually active males
and females have been exposed. A condom helps a lot (70% less
likely to get it), but has not been shown to stop transmission in
all cases (only one study of 82 college girls who self-reported
about condom use has been done). For the vast majority of women,
exposure to HPV strains (even the four "bad ones" protected for in
GARDASIL) results in no known health complications of any
kind.
3) Cervical cancer is not a deadly nor prevalent cancer in the US
or any other first world nation. Cervical cancer rates have
declined sharply over the last 30 years and are still declining.
Cervical cancer accounts for less than 1% of of all female cancer
cases and deaths in the US. Cervical cancer is typically very
treatable and the prognosis for a healthy outcome is good. The
typical exceptions to this case are old women, women who are
already unhealthy and women who don't get pap smears until after
the cancer has existed for many years.
4) Merck's clinical studies for GARDASIL were problematic in
several ways. Only 20,541 women were used (half got the "placebo")
and their health was followed up for only four years at maximum and
typically 1-3 years only. More critically, only 1,121 of these
subjects were less than 16. The younger subjects were only followed
up for a maximum of 18 months. Furthermore, less than 10% of these
subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given
injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer)
that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically
preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum
adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and
other possible vaccination related complications.
5) Both the "placebo" groups and the vaccination groups reported a
myriad of short term and medium term health problems over the
course of their evaluations. The majority of both groups reported
minor health complications near the injection site or near the time
of the injection. Among the vaccination group, reports of such
complications were slightly higher. The small sample that was given
a real placebo reported far fewer complications -- as in less than
half. Furthermore, most if not all longer term complications were
written off as not being potentially vaccine caused for all
subjects.
6) Because the pool of test subjects was so small and the rates of
cervical cancer are so low, NOT A SINGLE CONTROL SUBJECT ACTUALLY
CONTRACTED CERVICAL CANCER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- MUCH LESS
DIED OF IT. Instead, this vaccine's supposed efficacy is based on
the fact that the vaccinated group ended up with far fewer cases (5
vs. about 200) of genital warts and "precancerous lesions"
(dysplasias) than the alum injected "control" subjects.
7) Because the tests included just four years of follow up at most,
the long term effects and efficacy of this vaccine are completely
unknown for anyone. All but the shortest term effects are
completely unknown for little girls. Considering the tiny size of
youngster study, the data about the shortest terms side effects for
girls are also dubious.
8) GARDASIL is the most expensive vaccine ever marketed. It
requires three vaccinations at $120 a pop for a total price tag of
$360. It is expected to be Merck's biggest cash cow of this and the
next decade.
These are simply the facts about GARDASIL as presented by Merck and
the FDA.
|2.5.07 @ 9:37PM|#
Jennifer,
All too much, I'm afraid. It's interesting, heartening even, that
you now think death is a greater evil to be avoided than giving
birth.
Not that I want to start another abortion thread of course...
|2.5.07 @ 10:17PM|#
stickdog-
Some citations, please? Especially for this part:
Furthermore, less than 10% of these subjects received true placebo injections. The others were given injections containing an aluminum salt adjuvant (vaccine enhancer) that is also a component of GARDASIL. This is scientifically preposterous, especially when you consider that similar alum adjuvants are suspected to be responsible for Gulf War disease and other possible vaccination related complications.
I don't know much about these sorts of trials, but if the alum
adjuvants have previously been tested for safety then it would seem
reasonable to give them to most of the placebo group. That way you
could disentangle the effects of the vaccine from the effects of
the additives, and verify the efficacy.
Also, out of curiosity, what's your general opinion of
vaccination?
|2.6.07 @ 12:20AM|#
Ken, are you OK?
Yeah, just being sarcastic.
I say we offer a grand bargain to the religious right. Leave us
alone and we'll leave your kids alone.
But even apart from any grand deal, I find state intrusions into
how people raise their kids completely indefensible on libertarian
grounds. ...and I don't care whether coercing parents to vaccinate
their kids is good for parents or kids or us or society in
general.
stickdog|2.6.07 @ 3:01AM|#
thoreau, you can get all my references by clicking the link on
my name and looking down at the bottom of the initial
posting.
If you actually think that using a shot of alum that has never been
proven safe in humans and has been recently shown to cause neural
death in mice is a legitimate control placebo, then any scientific
credentials you have need to be immediately revoked.
In terms of vaccines in general, I feel that, like any other
medications or procedures, vaccines come with associated risks that
need to be weighed against their clinically proven benefits. How
about you?
Sammy|2.6.07 @ 10:34AM|#
All too much, I'm afraid. It's interesting, heartening even,
that you now think death is a greater evil to be avoided than
giving birth.
It took me a while to get this.
Funny stuf.
It is fun to watch the tension between jennifer's feminist streak
and her libertarian streak. it makes her very real somehow.
Jennifer|2.6.07 @ 1:35PM|#
What tension is that, Sam? I'm sincerely curious to know why you or Crimethink believe there's somehow an inherent contradiction involved when one is in favor of abortion rights and also in favor of [certain] mandatory vaccinations.
|2.6.07 @ 1:44PM|#
"What tension is that, Sam? I'm sincerely curious to know
why you or Crimethink believe there's somehow an inherent
contradiction involved when one is in favor of abortion rights and
also in favor of [certain] mandatory vaccinations."
Well if choice is your determining factor, it does seem like
there's a contradiction in there somewhere. If what's best for
society is your prime directive, well then I guess there
isn't.
...there's just the question of how you or anyone else could
possibly know what's best for all of us.
lunchstealer|2.6.07 @ 1:56PM|#
never been proven safe in humans
Stickdog, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Proving harm
is typically pretty easy, but proving safety is the same as proving
that there is no harm. A cautious scientist will prefer to
avoid terms like 'proven safe', but will instead use terms like 'no
evidence of harm'. To use a sentence like that and then question
Thoreau's scientific credentials is a bit harsh. Indeed, I'd say
that it shows a remarkable lack of understanding to cast aspersions
on his scientific qualifications based solely on his questions of
your at-the-time unsupported claims. If you'd given him a chance to
look through some of your supporting evidence before jumping to
that conclusion, maybe you'd be justified. But given the
circumstances, his questions were wholly reasonable.
Again, neither Thoreau nor myself will claim expertise in either
clinical medicine or vaccination. But I would think it would be not
only acceptable but vital to have at least one placebo group using
an identical substrate to that used for the vaccine. Otherwise, you
cannot deconvolve the effects of the substrate from the effects of
the vaccine.
Now, there seems, from the links you provided, to be some
indication that more testing of AlOH-based chemicals would be in
order. However, googling some of the main actors in this research
shows that they are celebrities in the homeopathic crowd, but not
gaining much traction outside that group.
I think that at this point, Gardasil should be optional, and
perhaps even encouraged, but I'm hard-pressed to find a valid
public interest to justify making it mandatory. I'd be interested
to see some further studies of AlOH-based adjuvants and other
adjuvants, but I think that scare-mongering about vaccination in
general is likely to do far more harm than good.
Sam Franklin|2.6.07 @ 5:48PM|#
A cautious scientist will prefer to avoid terms like 'proven
safe', but will instead use terms like 'no evidence of
harm'.
Proven safe may be too high a standard (depending upon what "safe"
is), but "no evidence of harm" is way, way, way too low of a
standard.
Sam Franklin|2.6.07 @ 6:12PM|#
If what's best for society is your prime directive . .
.
well, if that is the prime directive, then nobody has internal
tension. I mean that is sort of like being in favor of wise policy
or good things.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245