If you have put my name into a search engine, you have undoubtedly seen the long list of uncomplimentary remarks about me, mostly on various blog sites. Most of these relate to my policy work on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine from a few years ago.
The following should clarify my position with regard to the HPV vaccine.

I have supported and continue to support the development, testing, FDA approval, and marketing of the HPV vaccine. This vaccine is a powerful tool to prevent infection with certain types of the human papillomavirus and the cancers and other conditions it can cause.

In June, 2006, I voted unanimously with the other members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in approving a universal recommendation that young women receive the HPV vaccine.

I and others pointed out on several occasions that the issue of "disinhibition" -- the impact on sexual behavior that can result when a sexually transmitted disease becomes preventable or more easily treatable -- should be considered and thought through with regard to HPV. Experts at CDC have studied the issue and have concluded that disinhibition is not a significant factor with HPV and should not be a reason to avoid the vaccine. I have consistently agreed with this conclusion.

Like many others, I do not favor a mandate by state legislatures to make HPV vaccine a requirement for school attendance. This is because I believe that the decision to vaccinate for HPV belongs to a woman, her parents, and her medical caregivers. I believe that most medical decisions belong in this realm and that only in unusual circumstances should the federal or state governments step in to dictate the practice of medicine. Vaccines for diseases such as measles or pertussis (whooping cough), which are contagious in the community in the ordinary sense, are examples of such an unusual circumstance.