Rick Perry and Houston cervical cancer victim Heather BurchamMy 7-year-old son is named in honor of a beloved brother-in-law who died of melanoma at the age of 33.
My wonderful mother-in-law is a breast cancer survivor.
Many other close relatives have succumbed to various types of cancer and suffered terribly.
My best friend from childhood, Tami, died of leukemia at age 12. She was effervescent, wickedly funny, and defiant until the very end. Her favorite t-shirt was bright purple with puffy capital letters that read: “CANCER SUCKS.” Here we are in November 1982 at a Philly children’s hospital a month before she passed:
I will never, ever forget her dazzling smile and fighting spirit.
I am sharing these personal stories with you because I continue to receive simple-minded attacks from Rick Perry supporters who are upset by my criticism of his ill-conceived and ill-fated Gardasil mandate. The general thrust of their e-mails and tweets is: “DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT CANCER?! WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST FIGHTING CANCER? WHAT’S SO WRONG WITH STANDING AGAINST CANCER?”
Yes, I care about cancer. No, I have nothing against fighting cancer. I repeat: There is nothing wrong with “standing against cancer.”
As Tami joked while cancer wracked her body and chemo made her sick to her stomach: CANCER SUCKS.
But that is not the central issue with regard to the Perry debate.
And using such embarrassingly reductionist arguments (criticizing Perry’s Gardasil mandate = supporting the spread of cancer) is a tried-and-true progressive tactic (Medicare reform = killing grandma, Social Security reform = robbing grandpa, public union pension reform = hating workers, welfare reform = hating poor people, opposing cap and trade = hating Mother Earth) that sensible conservatives should reject.
…I’m glad Rick Perry is pro-life. But public officials cannot govern based on how they feel. They must think.
Their job is not to mandate life-saving interventions at any cost. Especially if the price is liberty-curtailment. (Listen to further discussion on this point at FreedomWorks radio here.)
“If it saves just one life” is a fiscally imprudent and morally irresponsible justification for massive government intervention — and antithetical to core Tea Party principles.
Moreover, the story now making the rounds is clearly an attempt to shift the spotlight from Perry’s Merck ties.
Just as I criticized Michele Bachmann for unwisely using one mother’s unvetted anecdote to bolster her criticism of Perry, I will repeat the warning against such demagogic tactics as the “erring on the side of life” defense. It’s a path that leads to the kind of heart-tugging Obamacare fables I’ve blasted for the past two years.
While the personal back story now being disseminated by Team Perry supporters may help explain why he did what he did, it does not in any way excuse it.
Gees, MM is beating a dead horse.
Rick Perry backed off his original decision and would never repeat it.
He has not got, as MM avers, a bedrock understanding of the role of gov’t in medicine that differs very much from hers or Romney’s.
I would ask MM and everyone who has a doctor who is a specialist to find out what moved their doctor to pick that particular specialty.
It is an amazing learning experience to do so.
My various specialists, and those I met when I took care of my mom were all moved to pick their specialty because of an event in life, just like Rick Perry was moved by his meeting that woman with the cancer.
I have never yet met any doctor who picked his specialty based on cold, hard reasonings.
Good Post and an excellent piece for thinking out all the consequences that can follow a law that is forced upon a free society in the name of the public good. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Skookum had a similar post, which sparked a healthy debate amongst friends here when I shared it. I came back this morning and read this one. It made me realize why I despise big government in the first place. I as an individual had to make a choice years ago when I realized that I could not have my cake and eat it too. Your post reaffirms that for me. I used to want to stick my finger down my throat every time I heard that “If we can save but one child with this purposed law, no matter of all the hardships that law may place on our free society, and or the cost, and or chipping away a little more at an individual’s freedom to choose, Then Its More Than Worth that Price.!” Working in government we all had to listen to this excuse over and over. But for myself I would always prefer the choice as to being made to do something. And yes I know that we have ignorant and dumb people in our society, and that personal responsibility has become one of those discarded values that was throw away in favor of having Big Brother and Big Sister take over that responsibility for us. But in the end is that not how we arrived here? By letting the government begin with the samll things being made into laws, and then onto the big things? I get mad when we buy a new car, and its covered in safety stickers. As is everything we buy today. But my liberal friends tell me that the ignorant people need those stickers to save their lives. I think back to cars and products that had no safety stickers, and our society functioned quite well. But we had common sense then, or maybe I just dreamed that! The State can and will pass every law in the book to protect us against ourselves in the end, but who will protect us from the state when we keep chosing to let them treat us like sheep.
Everyone has a pet project that want to become law to save people, animals, the enviornment, etc… but where do we draw the line? Where does individual responsibility play its part in this brave new America? I like to share with the young people around me about all the things we had a choice over back in the day, but are mandatory now. They express surprise, and find it difficult to believe that we had so many individual freedoms. Some wish it were like that now, but a few are shocked. Future liberals?
Malkin (and her supporters) are oblivious to the fact that the government already “mandates” vaccination of school children against all manner of communicable diseases, from whooping cough to polio to hepatitis B (the latter a disease which can only be caught through things like anal intercourse and the sharing of hypodermic needles). These policies not only protect the children who are vaccinated but also protect the rest of society from infection by these children (and their later, adult incarnations), since unvaccinated children are vastly more likely to spread these infections to others than are unvaccinated children.
Kindly make a cogent case for why vaccination against HPV should be considered in a different light than vaccination against hepatitis B. Why doesn’t Malkin go on a crusade against hepatitis B vaccination?
The conclusion is that she (and Bachmann) don’t like Perry and are using righteous libertarian indignation as a tool to attack him.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach
Hi Gary (#2): You keep trying to make this into a nanny state issue, where the nanny state seeks to protect people from harming themselves, e.g. seat belts and motorcycle helmets. But that’s not what it is about, it’s about government protecting people from harm by other people. If you choose to send your child to a given school, then you have to take reasonable measures to ensure that your child will not harm other children.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Sir, we are and have been a nanny state for years now. My point was and still is, that we did not get here by taking big steps first, but the little steps first. And that we as free Americans should take any constraints upon our liberty seriously. Yes part of me agrees with the vaccinations. But another part does not. For the simple reason that politicians and some concerned citizens if given their way will have us all taking shots, treatments, cures, etc for the disease of the week. I also think that any vaccine given to children should be tried for at least 30 to 40 years long-term. We have too many cases of people taking meds that were approved and the long-term effects did not show up for decades. Or the drug in question mutated sperm/egg, etc later on in adults. Or psychological problems. The list is endless, and the examples are too numerous to list. Yet at the time of their release they were heralded as “the cure all, the drug to stop this or that”. But for the people who rushed to take that drug the damage was done. Or death, or brain damage. But who decides what is good for you and me? A petty government official/politician with his/her own agenda, or me and you?
Gary, death is considered long term, in most circles. If twenty million are infected, the rate of transmission can be increased exponentially, now that sex and a so-called healthy sexual lifestyle is being promoted in the media and culturally. Increased sexual activity by younger and younger demographics is encouraged politically and within our public education system. If that twenty-million infections migrates into the sexual circles of the young, it is entirely possible that the virus could be out of control in a matter of months or weeks. Then what course of action would you suggest besides watching a massive die off of young people. The virus if left “unaddressed” and allowed to proliferate over an ever increasing swath of sexually active people, there is a distinct possibility that the disease may become more virulent. It is a numbers game, provide enough walking petri dishes and the possibilities are endless.
Did you read where the case study was unprecedented in the risk to benefit factor and that the drug is assumed to be as close to 100% effective. Smallpox, Whooping Cough and Polio are nearly eradicated from the face of the earth, should we put cancers of the genitalia and anus in this same category or should we consider them to be somehow quaint and cute or unworthy of consideration, since only people of low morals indulge in unsafe sex. The problem is, there is no safe sex when it comes to this virus. Abstinence is the only preventive measure that is effective, but some people say abstinence makes the heart grow fonder; actually it makes something else grow harder. Unsafe sex is destined to become a lot less safe, perhaps very quickly.
Being wiling to live with the ever increasing incidence of this devastating disease is to be justified because Perry, a man with almost no scientific training, made a critical error in mandating a decision that was best left up to legislators and the public, after a quick and frightening education as to the critical situation of the virus and the simplicity and safeness of the inoculation. Perry’s actions speak of his intellect and decision making skills, but they have no bearing on the practical issues involved with the drug. Unfortunately, Perry’s actions will now condemn thousands more to a horrible death because of his thoughtless actions and in assuming the role demagogue.
I personally have six young granddaughters, I don’t want to see any of them dying of cancers of the reproductive tract because others thought that science and politicians were intruding on the personal lives of Americans and the right of disease to have the freedom to infect at will. Don’t let the actions of half baked politicians cloud the obvious path of common sense. We have the ability for the first time in history to actually eradicate a major cancerous disease and we are letting small minds like Perry and Bachman define the debate. Believe it or not, there are informed and “Knowledgeable” people, without political agendas that can explain the situation far better than me.
I met some of the last victims of polio in university, they managed with their afflictions with dignity. The victims of cancers of the reproductive tract and anus usually just die a very undignified death. If you need me to be more specific to clarify the point, I can do that with photos and descriptions. If you want to try the light stuff, look up genital warts. Those jokes about guys with warts on their dinks aren’t so funny now that we know they were vectors for many types of cancers and death. They were in fact, grim reapers and we the ignorant were laughing.
@Skookum: Thanks for the response. But I think that I am being misunderstood, if I had a young daughter I would no doubt have her vaccinated but only after I had taken the time and the effort to educate myself on the matter. I would also like a choice in the matter as a responsible parent. And as an individual who despises governmental interference in my/family life. But I mentioned ‘responsibility” and extremely dirty and foul word in the American language today. Many people will go to great lengths to avoid it all together. And blame every one but themselves for their problems. I look at the controversy surrounding that issue as the age-old philosophical question “How much freedom is too much freedom in a society.” If I had no choice, but I would not like being forced even if I was going to do it in the first place. But do I recognize that our society has become one big nanny state where many people not only expect the state to protect them from themselves but demand it as well. Yes. What you said about sex and diseases I agree with. Does it matter that little children are now being warned and taught about those diseases by the state, no. Those diseases continue to prosper and grow, and mutate at an alarming rate. Yet they tell parents that they have the right, and it will save thousands of lives. I look at the state now telling the food industry what size their cokes can be, and if they can give out toys or not, or no more super orders of fries, etc… as if that will stop the heart attacks, blodclots and diabetes. I look at people who sue their doctors because they gave them painkillers and then blamed the doctors because they got addicted, and or their son had a wreck and was killed while using them. More laws to protect the helpless consumer! You can do more jail time and fines for smoking a regular cig, than you can with a joint. Yet you still inhale smoke which is not good for anyones lungs at all. Thats always big Brothers answer to everything! Do I believe Bachman and or Perry no. That was a good political hit scored by Bachman, and Perry should have stood strong on his first choice. I do my own research if I think I will vote for the person, and or they get my attention. Its rare when ever I do believe a professional politician. They are worse than used car salemans on the honesty meter. I have a granddaughter too and hope that no angry person will infect her with HIV/Aids, or another disease. But I like to think that our daughter will teach her individual responsiblity well. I also don’t like the press and others always using the “little children” to get more laws passed. Kinda like if you disagree you are worse than the grinch, and you want to see billions of little children die. Open and responsible debate about any issue has become very rare in this once great society that used to pride itself on it. No I am not saying you said that about me. And no pictures of cancer please, my grandfather died of cancer. He was my acting father. We had good friends die from liver, testicle and colon cancer, and brain cancer. We are at that age were we are losing more good friends than getting them. So I am only saying I don’t like the state telling me that I can’t have that super large coke, triple cheese burger, and smoke a pack of Lucky Strikes without the filters, and then polish it all off with a bottle of Jack Black for good measure. But do I get a flu shot every year? Yes. If Big Brother made it a law would I? Yes, but I would not like it one damn bit! Unless I had a choice! But that flu shot would not have done me one damn bit of good if I had not chosen to stop all the above behaviors!
Gary, as usual, we have similar philosophical ideas. I’ve never had a flu shot, I ave my doubts as to the legitimacy of predicting the particular strains of flu months in advance. I despise the image of Big Brother or Sis, but many of us, like you have lost loved ones from cancer and we prayed for some type of miracle. We now have that miracle at our finger tips, but I doubt whether 20% of the people who are arguing the merits of this drug and the Bachman/Perry question understand the significance of this breakthrough.
Unfortunately, because this cancer that has been previously viewed as random chance by even the medical profession, as Larry heroically admitted, is now understood to be a STD, it is regarded as being in a different class than Polio, Smallpox, and Whooping Cough and to be treated differently, just as AIDS requires special treatment. Thus a disease that could have been severely curtailed, if we would have isolated the cases in ’81, but no, the disease has killed tens of thousands of gay men because they wanted the whole thing kept under wraps and kept a secret, leaving discretion and honor to those who are sick, so that they have the freedom to make the right choices. It has cost a great deal of suffering, while we wait for the most honorable of the sick to make examples of themselves. I am sure some have chosen the honorable path, but many more have been willing to spread the virus.
Treating the disease as a curable disease will probably be much more difficult because of the actions of Bachman and Perry. Some questions of health are best not left to people like Michelle O, who has proclaimed herself a dietician.
The reason I mentioned Colonel Fallon, in the Oregon Trail Story, wanting to make camp upstream of previous campsites at rivers and creeks to avoid cholera was because this was a real matter of contention in those days as to whether you should camp downstream or upstream. Still today, we would surely have some that would prefer camping downstream because it just seems right. Many of those people died and the ones that lived became vectors for Cholera on down the trail, spreading untold misery and death.
There is misinformation and superstition concerning immunization, they have been there since it was noticed that the girls milking cows weren’t contracting Smallpox. There is a delicate balance between freedom of choice and matters of public health; I don’t have the answers, but our leading politicians don’t have the slightest clue. They have only added fuel to the fires of ignorance and superstition.
Now to those liberals who have defended Obama through the most bone headed moves made in the history of this country, who have accused me and others of being strictly partisan, let me say my keyboard cuts both ways. Conservatives are almost certain to have a landslide victory in 2012, but I will never be so oblique as the MSM and the Lib bloggers have been in defending the most helpless and inept president the US has ever elected. I don’t want to be regarded as an irrelevant hack because of biased reporting, forget that. They are all fair game for me. That is the attitude that makes a Republic healthy as opposed to a tunnel visioned pundit that writes to embellish an ideology.
Objectivity is the key word, its’ true some Conservatives will fail the test, but all the Liberal and Progressives have failed the objectivity test.
@Skook: I hear what you’re saying Skooum, and agree. I even disagree with the flu shot, it makes me sick for a week most times. But it does help me and my own cursed disease. No doubt it has saved my life. I want to be brief so as not to bore you but I was diagnosed years ago at the top of my game with what they thought at the time was a rare blood disease. I have since been to numerous hematologist in an effort to find a cure and or if one may be available in the near future for my own daughter, and possibly grandchildren if they have it. But what I found out by volunteering as a human guinea pig astounded me. I discovered that what the medical community knows about our blood is very little. They are now on the fast track to finding out more everyday, but as I was told “we know more about space than how our blood works, and changes over the course of life. How those changes are effected by medicine, food, drink, enviornment, etc..for the worse/better.” To give you an example my blood now rejects most many meds I took before with impunity when sick. I was and am always interested in meds in their effects/cause/relationship as part of my job but had no idea how ignorant the medical community still is on why our blood changes over our life span. I was always suspicious of politicians and there pushing one med/vaccine in the first place, but now even more so. That problem has influence my own thinking, and of course my belief that we as humans with an appropriate amount of responsibility for self and should have the freedom of choice. But like I said before so as not to beat a dead horse again, I don’t think that some members of our society are mature enough to make such a decision as in this case unfortuantely. Like you said too much misinformation and superstitions. Look at all the fanatical followers of Obama, who when asked why they voted for him could only say “he is black!” Or when asked What has he done in the past”I don’t know, don’t care but I love him!” That is downright scary!! That kind of ignorance in any society should be a warning to all of us. Or we going to give them the choice as to which meds/vaccines to take? Thats my delemma. And I agree completely with you that our politicans do not have the answers. And no doubt will let the problems fester like they have with all the other issues till it blows up in everyones face. Then blame each other like they are doing now. SOS differnet day, different problem. Another point is that some of my friends think that its too late for us, no matter what we do. That we have come too far in the past 50 years down the road of socialism, at first with baby steps but have now progressed to leaps and bounds. That the 50’s was the peak of American values, morals and traditions. I tend to agree. But does that keep me from doing what I can to slow down the progresive and destructive liberal agenda. No. But in the end we will always have those people who will sleep in happy ignorance downstream of the problem. And then wake up and proclaim, “I am a victim of ________!” Fill in the blank. But regardless I liked this post and yours because they make me think! And to quote and old psychologist “We are the only creatures on the face of the planet who can actively think about out own thinking process. Its unfortunate that many humans rarely and or don’t engage in this enlightening habit more often.” We would have already been ran off on a liberal site, those people who profess to an all inclusive and open mind!
Curt: This is a good topic, which has prompted some interesting discussion, but I must say that on this issue I stand with Skookum. The choice here is stark and clear: the HPV vaccine will save lives – not just one, but thousands of lives – as well as millions of dollar and untold suffering. It’s as good an example as one could want of government fulfilling its proper role, protecting the public from an unequivocal danger and providing a necessary service. It’s hard for me even to recognize another side to this issue, especially one based on an appeal to liberty, since, as Skookum aptly observes, in this case it’s the “freedom” – primarily of young women – to die a lingering, unpleasant death or to undergo costly and debilitating therapy.
Some related topics: I do agree with you, Curt, that public officials should govern on the basis of thought rather than emotion (and also rather than on the latest or highest bid from K Street!) Did Gov. Perry base his initial decision regarding HPV vaccine on his feelings or on his political assessment of what would sell best to the public. (This is cynical, I know, but I have to observe that Perry is not “pro life”. Anyone who boasts as callously as he does about signing off on 235 state sanctioned executions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called pro-life!)
As to public health policy in general, we’re not discussing here the saving of just one life, but I have to ask, who has ever used that particular phrase or that argument in supporting a government policy? Seriously I’ve never heard it, so perhaps you can help me by providing specific examples.
Gary: I guess I could ask you for the same favor, since you cite virtually the same thing. Who has ever declared publically that the cost of a public health measure is justified, if even one life can be saved by it? I can’t imagine anyone saying something that stupid; but, if anyone did, I’d certainly disagree. Cost is an unavoidable and crucial consideration in every question of public health, which is why the repeated warnings about rationing by opponents of healthcare reform are so ridiculous. No workable healthcare system could possibly be devised that didn’t involve rationing, nor do I recall anyone ever suggesting that one could be!
You decry the plethora of “safety stickers” that adorn new cars. I don’t recall seeing such stickers, but I haven’t shopped for a new car lately, so I could be wrong. Let’s discuss automotive safety itself and government’s role in it. The fact that you’ve harangued young people about how things used to be “back in the day” suggests that you’re old enough to remember the carnage on our nation’s highways before the advent of harness restraints, air bags, reinforced passenger compartments and crumple zones, collapsing steering columns, gas tank liners, etc. (According to the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System between 1979 and 2002 highway fatalities decreased from 51,093 per year to 42,185.) These safety measures were based on extensive testing by manufacturers and insurers as well as by government agencies, but in general they were mandated by the federal government. Testing and the eventual incorporation of safety measures in vehicles was resisted by manufacturers because of added costs. Anyone interested in this issue and the need for strong and effective oversight of manufacturers should read the landmark Mother Jones article about the Ford Pinto and its exploding gas tank.
The idea that these and other public safety measures have been forced upon an unwilling populace by an overweaning “state” is such nonsense that it’s hard to debate the issue seriously. My wife was wheelchair bound (from a riding accident)l, when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. I know from personal experience what a nightmare it was for us to go out for dinner, attend a hockey game, or even shop. Just crossing the street was often a dangerous challenge. Then the 1990 ADA was passed and almost overnight things changed. Suddenly there were ramps everywhere. Busses had hydraulic elevators. And so on. Why? Because the federal government said it must be so and hammered businesses and municipalities that didn’t comply. Could this have been accomplished as well through voluntary action? I sincerely doubt it!
I find it strange that this thread has attracted so little comment, because it concerns one of the core issues dividing liberals and conservatives, that is the proper role of government in a democratic republic like ours. It’s hard to divorce this basic question from the circumstance giving rise to it, and in this case Curt has chosen a thought provoking example. Should we empower our government to compel lifesaving medical treatments for those who cannot choose these for themselves. I said “cannot” instead of “will not”, because that describes the precise situation. Young teenage schoolgirls generally lack both the knowledge and the right of self determination they would need to make this choice for themselves. Unfortunately many parents are also poorly informed. This raises issues of parental control in addition to self determination; but other factors intrude as well. The vaccine is ineffective in girls who have already been exposed to HPV and we know that a certain fraction of teenage girls will have intimate sexual contact at an early age. The decision to decline or postpone innoculation puts that girl and a potential cascade of other young people at risk. Who, if anyone, should have that prerogative?
In my opinion no one! I favor mandatory HPV vaccination for all preadolescent girls and boys, and I do not favor an “opt out” provision for parents, unless they can provide a compelling, medically justifiable reason (for example, if their child is allergic to the vaccine.) What about freedom? Gary might ask, to which I’d respond much as Skookum has, that there are many different freedoms, some large, some small, and all dependant on social context. The “freedom” of a twelve year old girl to contract cervical cancer later in life, because her parents were influenced by Michelle Bachmann, is no freedom at all. Concomitantly the “right” of a girl’s parents to impose that risk on their daughter is not one that society should grant them.
Larry, I actually responded to your question, how is HPV different from Hep B, on Skookum’s thread, written on the same day as this Most Wanted article was posted.
I’m relatively surprised to hear you, considering your profession, repeat this erroneous information about Hep B. Perhaps it’s a wide stab to equate the two, in order to justify your belief. But, as I answered you on Skook’s post (i.e. what is the difference) is that Hep B can be spread by contact with bodily fluids and blood, and HPV cannot. It is spread solely by genital skin contact during sexual activity. Hep B is not exclusively a sexually transmitted disease. HPV is.
As the Hepatitis Info Org states:
Gotta be a kinky sort to sexually assault a family member or friend’s toothbrush, and end up with Hep B, don’t you think?
How about contact with a cut? Body fluids that are present because of items handled without the infected person washing his hands? This is unintentional transmission, and the reason that states generally have legislation for diseases that can be spread just by contact, or perhaps being sneezed on.
I don’t put infectious diseases that are transmitted via airborne particles or contact with body fluids, which can be inadvertently shared, in the same classification as a disease that is transmitted by behavioral choices. Certainly it should be made available, but it should also be a choice… not a mandate. Otherwise where are the limits for government mandates?
The morning after pill, for example? Even tho the vertical transmission of HPV is rare and low in percentile, it certainly exists. So would that be another domino logic effect of such mandated “protection” against chosen behavior? How about a pregnant teen, infected with HIV or aids… a disease that easily spreads thru vertical transmission. Should there be abortion mandates to prevent one who enters the world, born with the ability to spread AIDs? Are they not a “public health” risk?
Oh the slippery slopes that open up when you allow government to assume the parental role.
Even the CDC respects the parents rights to know.
INRE Perry’s actions on the HPV vaccine… I don’t fault him for wanting to bring this up as an option in the public schools. But I’m not happy with this done by executive fiat. Most are implemented by enacted legislation in the individual states., and not EO regulatory actions.
Were my kids still of this age, I’d want to know about the risks and side effects, doing my own research. But I’d likely support them receiving the vaccine. I would *not*, however, relinquish that parental authority to a government entity at any level.
Hi Mata:
You make a serious charge, considering that I am, indeed, a professional and I sign my own name, thereby putting my professional reputation at risk. I must respond and correct your erroneous insinuations.
Here are the facts. There has only been a single study in North America in which all the cases of hepatitis B were studied within a single geographic region and each and every person was interviewed by trained public health investigators, in order to determine the route of transmission. I’ll describe these findings further on down, but first I’d like to put my discussion in some context.
Earlier this year, I was an expert witness in a hepatitis B legal case (a bench hearing which lasted for more than 6 months and which generated thousands of pages of public domain transcripts). I was on the stand for a day and a half, and I testified under oath. My entire testimony appears in the public domain verbatim transcripts.
The details of the case and witness testimony (including mine) were summarized in the comprehensive opinion of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing.
http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/bds02624-09_1.html
My sworn testimony included what I am now about to explain to you:
Your general quotes from Hepatitis info org are very misleading. Most of the papers on hepatitis transmission are derived from collections of cases from a relative handful of major hepatitis referral centers. Patients referred to such centers tend to have very serious disease — quite often referred for liver transplants. Patients referred to such centers are interviewed by hepatitis specialists to determine the probable mode of transmission. Eventually, someone writes a paper. Then someone writes a review. Then someone running a so-called authoritative web site reads the review and produces the sort of misleading information you quote.
The other type of situation where the mode of transmission in a number of patients is reported is in an “outbreak.” In an “outbreak” there is a cluster of cases, traceable to an identifiable source. These tend to be, most often, infections caused by an infected health care worker with open sores or else an improperly maintained medical device.
None of the aforementioned types of studies/publications actually addresses the issue of how most hepatitis B infections are actually acquired, within a community.
The only study in North America in which the origin of community-acquired infections was studied in detail was a very important British Columbia Health Department study, published in 2009.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2893.2008.01045.x/full
I quoted this study in my sworn testimony. You’ll need a medical library affiliation to download the full text of the above study, but allow me to excerpt the relevant information.
The public health agency conducting the study is responsible for surveying all regions of British Columbia outside of Vancouver. Thus, it does not include so-called inner city/urban populations. They proceeded to investigate every single case of acute hepatitis B (a reportable disease) diagnosed between 2001-2005. It should also be noted that many cases of hepatitis B are relatively mild and go undiagnosed. Again, there is a bias for reported cases to include heavy hepatitis B inoculums, e.g. from intravenous drug users and from men having sex with men, as there is a severe bias for the cases in the major hepatitis centers to have the most severe disease, also from the heaviest inoculums. So these data are, if anything, skewed for identifying cases of hepatitis B identified through mechanisms other than so-called lower risk heterosexual activity.
None-the-less, here’s what the investigators found and reported:
70 cases of acute hepatitis B (from a population of 3.3 million people, during a 4 year period).
47 males 23 females
63% white, 10% East Asian, 9% South Asian, 9% Aboriginal, 10% “other” (i.e. minimal black representation)
Identifiable risk factors
Heterosexual activity 53
Intravenous drug use 20
Incarceration (perhaps a “marker” for either IV drug use or male on male sex) 15
It adds up to be more than 70, because 18 people obviously had more than a single risk factor.
Now, it’s abundantly clear that the number one risk factor for contracting hepatitis in a non-large-urban population is heterosexual activity. Less common risk factors are intravenous drug use and incarceration.
Yes, Hepatitis B is transmitted by blood to blood contact. HPV is transmitted by skin to skin contact. But the number one mechanism through which BOTH are transmitted is heterosexual sexual activity.
Vaccination for Hepatitis B is mandatory for school children in virtually every state in the country (for good reason). This is every bit as much state intrusion into parental control of their offspring as would be mandatory HPV vaccination. The HPV vaccine is every bit as safe as the Hepatitis B vaccine. The idea that HPV vaccination would promote “immoral” activity is no more or less valid than the idea that Hepatitis B vaccination promotes “immoral” activity.
If you disagree with any of the above points, kindly explain.
The key issue is that the state has an well-established interest in protecting the well being of the community, through control of communicable disease. If an adult wants to put himself/herself at risk (e.g. a 60 year old deciding not to get a flu shot or Herpes zoster/”shingles” vaccination), then that is one thing. If an irresponsible parent wants to put put his/her own child at risk, then that’s something quite different (established precedents including not allowing parents to rely solely on faith healing in the case of serious illness).
But where the rubber really meets the road is on the issue of whether an irresponsible parent ought to be permitted to allow his/her child to be a disease reservoir and therefore a threat for the rest of the community (in this case, the community of public school children). It is the well-established precedent that parents do not have the right to expose other people’s children to the risk of infection transmission by their unvaccinated child.
How many partners did Bristol (an underage minor) have before she hooked up with Levi? I’m not picking on Sarah; simply making an obvious point.
Present and past HPV infection is not rare (conservatively found in 50% of men and 25% of women). This can be dramatically reduced through population vaccination, in the same fashion as polio and other communicable diseases. With this reduction, we’ll see a corresponding decline in cervical, anal, oral, vaginal, and penile cancer.
Michelle Bachmann has done a huge disservice to public health through her unreasoned hysteria.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA