Blurting Nonsense
Gail Collins writes today in her NYT op-ed that Michelle Bachmann
scored a Tea Party version of a home run when she laced into Rick Perry for trying to require girls in Texas public schools to be vaccinated against HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.
A bit further down in her column:
About the vaccine. It’s been proved to be effective in reducing cervical cancer in sexually active women, and it apparently works best if you begin the shots around age 12. The intense opposition from the social right appears to be based on the idea that once the kids had the shots they’d be more likely to have sex. Or, in the convoluted and creepy words of Rick Santorum: “Unless Texas has a very progressive way of communicating diseases in their school by way of their curriculum, then there is no government purpose served for having little girls inoculated at the force and compulsion of the government.”
Then, Bachmann tossed in another argument: vaccines are dangerous. “I had a mother last night come up to me … she told me her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter,” Bachmann told one TV interviewer after another.
O.K., hold the phone.
Let’s presume that Bachmann is being accurate, and that the woman in question was not someone she heard about from a friend of a friend’s cousin in Xenia, Ohio. What would you expect a candidate for president of the United States to do after such an encounter? Take a name? Investigate the case? Would a contender for the White House “” or even the Zoning Board of Appeals “” just blurt out something they heard from a stranger that could discourage parents from accepting vaccinations that could save their children’s lives?
The Bachmann campaign did not respond to my questions about who the woman was or what the candidate did to check out the information. So I guess maybe, yeah.
It is unfortunate (but probably it was inevitable) that objections to mandatory vaccinations on rational grounds got mixed up with social/religious right agenda. Nevertheless unjustified government intervention remains what it is even if religious right oppose it for entirely different reasons.
Hey! I live near Xenia!
There’s a reward now for evidence of this claim:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/09/15/bioethicist-offers-10000-reward-for-proof-of-bachmann-vaccine-claims/
This is the third large name or organization that came out against health misinformation this week that I’ve seen. I hope it is a trend across science misinformation. But I’m not holding my breath.
Keith,
You seem to be spending a lot of time hammering Bachman, who would/will not get the nomination she is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican field. Michelle Bachman is out there, says crazy things, will never get the Republican nomination. OK now that is settled shall we move on to dicussing important issues facing this country? You sure are travelling a strange path to get Obama re-elected. Perhaps one or two articles on the Democrat Presidential candidate, maybe Obama, to show that balance you always claim to have. Maybe the Solyndra scandal, that ties in to Global Warming?
PS Not holding my breath
A few posts constitutes a lot of time? And I’m hardly alone. What she said has made big news and the subject it relates to (vaccine opposition) is of longstanding interest to me.
When the general campaign kicks off, you’ll see more Obama in posts, and yes, you’ll see something on Solyndra soon. Probably not soon enough to prevent you from turning purple, though.
Keith,
Fair enough. Like I said, I was not holding my breath 😉
The Solyndra scandal has something to do with global warming? I’m interested in hearing about that…
President Obama will get re-elected (with my vote–wish I had more to offer…) in part because Bachman is helping reinforce the reputation the current lackluster Republican field is determined to say stupid things about scientific issues in general. So using Bachman is an example seems pretty reasonable. Until the next example shows up. tomorrow, probably…
Tom,
Let me help you out here. The theory goes (for you the fact goes) that CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm and that we must drastically curtail our CO2 emissions. Part of that is for the government to invest in clean energy as the evil oil corporations want all if its customer base to burn in flames. Solyndra was a company that seems to have had some help from the Obama administration with some loans guarenteed by the government and was touted as the future for green jobs since Solyndra was providing Solar Power solutions.
Bachman says stupid things and Obama DOES stupid things. I think Obama wins the stupid contest.
Hi Jon P,
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on Obama’s intelligence or lack thereof.
I’m not a fan of government trying to pick winners, and Solyndra may be just the latest example. As for your larger framing of the issue,
1. The planet has warmed noticeably since 1880
2. We have contributed mightily to concentrations of greenhouse gases during that period.
3. Noticing the coincidence of those two phenomena is just being aware of reality
4. Investigating whether the two are just correlated or if in fact there is causality is kinda what science does
5. Taking advantage of what we know about physics should help us with beginning assumptions–that increased concentrations of CO2 should elevate temperatures at a rate of about 1 degree C per doubling, and that variations in either direction from that 1 degree may well be associated with feedbacks and forcings that should be examined.
6. Further rapid warming may well have real world negative consequences for certain regions on this planet, and hence this should be investigated thoroughly and openly.
7. We have additional reasons to move away from energy sources that contributes to this warming.
8. Governments are a natural source of impetus to moving away from sources of high CO2 energy, just as they were to adoption of same.
9. Governments are not typically expected to be as efficient at identifying solutions, hence mistakes can be expected, and in fact have happened.
10. That doesn’t mean we abandon scientific investigation, potential policy responses, or corrective measures to identified mistakes.
But thanks for the offer of help.
Tom,
Agree with 1-3.
You should tell the folks at RC and here about 4&5, they seem to often forget these points.
6 Define rapid
7 agree
8 Disagree
9 Agree and kind of diminishes your #8
10 Who said that? Oh yeah that is your opinion of Republicans. Does this Straw Man come with a green jacket?
Obama has intelligence? When does he plan on using it?
It seems that Solyndra was more about the green jobs issue than global warming. And we will have to wait for the investigation to determine if it was just a bad choice or not. That the CEO of Solyndra was a contributor to Obama’s campaign, as I heard, certainly justifies looking into.
But the issue of whether government should try and make these choices also can’t be addressed without noting the subsidies that China is giving it’s solar industry. Heard on the radio yesterday that adds up to $30 billion. So was Solyndra really a bad choice, or the victim of dumping?
I personally think the loan to Solyndra was a mistake. It is also tactical, not strategic, due more to desire for a political win than anything at all to do with solar power or even renewable energy–it could just as easily have been an assembly line in Michigan.
Hey, Barack–own the mistake and move on.
Jon P @4,
Actually, Keith had a few posts on Perry, who has said nonsensical things about science similar to Bachmann, on the subject of evolution and climate change.
Solyndra was a mistake. Whether it was a scandal remains to be seen.
The interesting thought in Collins column, was her opinion, that Bachmann was on target in her criticism, that Perry’s executive order on HPV vaccination was more about influence peddling, rather than a genuine desire to prevent infection in sexually active youth. Perry was an advocate of abstinence only sex education.
Perry has a long history of influence peddling in return for campaign cash. The latest big story on this involves a scandal involving a big donor who got a big radioactive waste disposal site next to an aquifer. This was done without a public hearing over the objections of technical experts.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/15/140506401/perry-donors-radioactive-waste-site-deal-scrutinized
Hmm do not remember this kind of vetting of Obama, still don’t to this day. The one-sided (blind-sided) love fest with the Democrats continues. Almost pointless here. Well actually Obama has asked to love him, thus graduating from the worst President to the creepiest and nary a word. Shh do not talk about Jeffrey Immelt either nor GE and their taxes. Bring up some more Buffet but fail to enlighten all on how he avoids taxes. With all the scandal and big corporation “greasing” going on IN THE CURRENT White House all youl can see (with the lumber in your eyes) is the stupid sayings of the Republican version of Denis Kucinich and Perry who just entered the race. Perry is a novice compared to Obama for “influence peddling”.
Jeez
#9. Tom Fuller Says:
“1. The planet has warmed noticeably since 1880”
As the Little Ice Age ends, or ended.
Or were the CO2 concentrations in 1880 were supposedly enough to supposedly initiate that warming?
NO they were not – even if that mattered.
And the Solyndra thing is a ‘Chicago style’ corruption case, just like most things Obama does. It is going to be a huge scandal and, on top of the economy and Obama’s dud leadership, he is Jimmy Carter II.
I actually liked Carter much, much, much better. At least he was genuinely sincere and honest, and not just a smooth talking puppet.
Well EdG, I think we’re fated to disagree.
But why do you think the LIA ended? Was there a rer that went off?
I liked Carter, too. But not as much as BHO. As for scandal, come back in a week and we’ll see if anybody’s talking about it.
Love mobile posting. That rer up above is supposed to read timer.
Conservative Republican Michael Gerson in the WaPo:
It is possible that Rick Perry encouraged HPV vaccinations in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons. But it is Bachmann, not Perry, who would put girls and women at greater health risk based on moral confusion and public health illiteracy.
Just a quick note to the Obama-hating trolls: a post about statements made by Republican Presidential candidates, be it about evolution, climate change, or vaccines, is about just that, and not about Obama.
I realize that such posts may trigger your tribal defenses and cause you to launch into an anti-Obama diatribe.
That will no longer be tolerated. You’re junking up my blog with your partisan vitriol. When Obama or a Democrat is the subject of a post, then you can have at it.
But not otherwise.
No Keith it is not a tribal defense just a reaction to your prior claims of being even-handed and taking both sides to task. We now realize this is not the case. You lean left, you are in the AGW camp and you attack all those not in your tribe. Your blog of course but I think you should drop the “gee I am fair and down the middle as I am critical of all players”. Wrong.
Sorry Jon P but no. KK is well aware of my sceptic leanings and has never once made an issue of them and I expect others here can say the same.
So long as a comment is polite and cogent it is accepted but attempts to derail and in this case jump on Obama when the thread is about someone else should quite rightly be brought to heel.
One point I find interesting in the HPV debate in the US is this. The objections seem to be coming from the right. I find this odd because in Australia the national program to immunise all women for HPV was brought in by our last “right wing” government.
Down here the right (who are slightly preferred by the religious right) funded the research that produced the vaccine. The right designed the immunisation program, the right provided the funding to pay for the injections and the right saw the program through until losing office. All this was done I might add with the agreement and complete consent of the political left.
We had the same complaints from our “religious right” but they were told, quite often to their face, that Australians preferred our young women to have the reduced risk of cancer. (In many ways it was viewed as similar to the smallpox eradication program of decades ago.)
As for the stupid anti-vaxxers and their “daughter of a sisters cousins friend” stories. Here is the report from the Australian Health Department. AFAIK we are the only nation to have had such a large scale immunisation program using this vaccine and the results concerning adverse reactions are very clear.
http://www6.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/cda-cdi3204i.htm
“Surveillance of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) in the school-based program in New South Wales in 2007 noted an apparently higher rate of anaphylaxis than documented from other vaccination programs. An investigation confirmed 7 reported cases (2.6 per 100,000 doses)1 but this apparently increased rate was not observed in other areas of Australia.”
2.6 per 100,000 does but this apparent increase rate was not observed in other areas of Australia.
Says it all really.
Just a general thing on Democrats and Republicans. The problem isn’t the President, whichever side he may be from. The problem is that neither side has a single damn policy on anything. Aside from generalities that something might need “fixing” there is nothing about what exactly is wrong and what will/should be done to “fix” it. I know, I’ve looked.