Courtland Milloy, a columnist for the Washington Post who covers local D.C. issues, penned a particularly ill-informed column in today’s paper about the new HPV vaccine.
In effect, he criticizes public health officials in Washington, D.C., for acting responsibly to protect public health! A new policy the D.C. Public Council is promulgating is apparently racist, according to Milloy. One of the biggest problems with his column – one of several biggies – is that the policy isn’t racist. In fact, it follows to the letter recommendations from a federal panel of immunization experts!
More below the fold...
Milloy begins the column by talking about a parent with a young girl heading into the sixth grade and she’ll need the usual vaccinations. This year, though, something’s different:
But this time, there's another disease on the list, one that the D.C. government is strongly urging your daughter be immunized against: the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which is sexually transmitted. After all, your daughter is 11 and probably black, so the assumption is she'll be having unprotected sex in no time -- but don't take offense.
That’s right, you shouldn’t be offended. And I’ll tell you why in a second (because Milloy, amazingly, doesn’t tell you himself). But I’ll let him continue:
Only the most progressive and caring elected city officials -- in this case, two nice white people -- would propose a program to vaccinate against sexually transmitted disease girls under 13 in a predominantly black school system. After all, if the girls' parents can't protect them -- and, God knows, they can't protect themselves -- then somebody's got to do it. There is no vaccine for the boys who infect the girls, so just forget about them.
So, where to begin to dissect the multiple shortcomings of this commentary. Hmm, first I say we start with an article from last June in Milloy’s own paper, in which the well-respected science writer David Brown explains that:
"The committee of experts that advises the federal government on immunization policy yesterday recommended that the new vaccine that prevents most cases of cervical cancer be given to all 11- and 12-year-old girls."
Now, the recommendations from this federal panel are not mandatory. They are advisory and each state and locality chooses how it wants to proceed with vaccinations. In this case, Washington, D.C., is advising its parents to do exactly what the federal expert panel recommended.
Unfortunately, Milloy never mentions that in his column. Hmm. I guess if you’re trying to make somebody look like a racist, that’s something you might want to do.
Then there are the data to support the idea of early vaccination. I found these in a 5-minute Google search, although some of them are admittedly older data:
- According to a 2001 study, 71 percent of girls in the United States have had sex before age 20.
- Twenty-three percent of all 14-year-olds and 30 percent of all 15-year-olds have had sexual intercourse, according to 1994 Guttmacher Institute study.
- In 1992, approximately 25 percent of African American females and approximately 15 percent of Hispanic and white females have had sexual intercourse by age 15, according to a 1995 study.
- 45% of 9-12th graders have had sex, according to a 2003 Kaiser Survey
In the spirit of full disclosure, I write about cancer for a living and have written several articles on the HPV vaccine as part of my daily work. My comments here are my opinion only and do not represent the opinions of my employer.
In the course of my writing, I have learned that another impetus for vaccinating girls early is that it’s easier. The vaccination is a three-shot regimen over a year. It’s apparently easier to successfully complete that sort of regimen on younger girls who are under more close parental control and more likely to come in for routine checkups.
Milloy does cite a prominent bioethicist who wrote a column in the New England Journal of Medicine last year discussing mandatory vaccinations and usurping parental authority, but it’s just sort of thrown in there and doesn’t really do much for the column other than to lend the appearance that Milloy at least did a minute or two of actual research before banging out this garbage.
He actually doesn’t get into the cost of the vaccination, which is substantial in comparison to other vaccinations and could make it cost prohibitive for low-income families. But, in this case, it’s probably safe to assume that a good portion of the bill may be covered by the federal Vaccines for Children program.
Milloy brings up safety and Tuskegee. Of course, he fails to say that the clinical trials upon which the FDA approval was based, which involved thousands of women, revealed no serious safety issues and the trials have involved women from all over the world, not just minority women.
Finally, as for the boys who Milloy seems to suggest are being ignored by the racist – and presumably sexist - public health officials, there is an HPV vaccine for boys under development. It’s advancing through late-stage clinical trials right now. It’s probably a few years away from FDA approval and will most likely be the subject of similar recommendations once that happens.
Columns like this do a serious disservice to those reporters and activists who are trying to document and bring to light actual instances of racism and actions that are unduly harming minority and low-income people in this country.
But I’m guessing Milloy was on deadline and needed an easy hook for his column. And so he saw this new recommendation, instantly made up his mind about what the story was, and never looked back.
Congrats, Mr. Milloy. If you’re ever in need of a new job, look up Pajamas Media. They make an actual living writing things that are just plain wrong.