California HPV Vaccine Law Signed

I found this story this morning while perusing the daily news.  I thought I would include it here because I have some readership that has shown a serious personal interest in this very topic.  California has passed a new law allowing girls as young as 12 years old to obtain the Gardasil vaccine without parental consent.  The bill also put into effect a law that will make it illegal for anyone under 18 to visit tanning beds.  I like to try and keep this blog as intellectual as possible, but I have to say, “Seriously?!”  Am I the only person who finds this whole thing to be a bit nuts?

There is some evidence that has come out suggesting that Merck, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the Gardasil vaccine, has greased a few palms in the California state legislature to make sure that this pill passed, according to Cal Watchdog.  You can view the article here.  Apparently, Merck made a few payouts into the election coffers of some of the reps.  Merck also made a $6,000 payout to Texas governor Rick Perry, who sponsored a similar bill in Texas that was later repealed.

There are a lot of issues here that are frightening to look at.  According to an article by Natural Society, between May 2009 and September 2010, Gardasil was linked to 3,589 adverse reactions, many of which were debilitating.  It has also been linked to 49 deaths.  Forty-nine deaths out of 15 million vaccinated since 2009 may not seem like a lot, but frankly, if you take into account the number of people who have had adverse reactions, the odds suddenly don’t look so good.  Personally, I wouldn’t want to take that chance on myself or someone I love, especially given the fact that cervical cancer accounts for about 1% of all cancer-related deaths in America today.

Natural Society has another article that explains in greater detail why this vaccine could be so dangerous.  Several of the vaccines from around the world – this is not an isolated incident – have been tested and discovered to be contaminated with HPV rDNA, which can remain in human cells for an unknown period of time and result in unknown consequences.  It is possible that the rDNA could cause mutations.

Of course, the Gardasil site that is provided by Merck makes no mention of these 49 deaths or 3,000+ cases of bad side effects.  There is an initial list of side effects that don’t sound too terrible, all told… Until you scroll down.  Then there’s a longer list of symptoms that you might experience after receiving the vaccination.  To me, that would indicate at least some knowledge of more extensive possible side effects.  Of course, this isn’t being made public.  You have to dig around a little bit for some of this information.

The CDC has information about Gardasil as well, and it reports that about 35 million individuals in the U.S. have now received the shot.  There have been 68 deaths among those who received the shot and more than 18,000 reports of adverse effects from those vaccinated.

There is a final article here from the Free Press, which published commentary from Dr. Diane Harper, who helped develop Cervarix, the GlaxoSmithKline version of Gardasil.  She admits that there is no evidence that these vaccines will prevent cervical cancer, given that the current vaccines only last 5-8.5 years.  She claims the vaccine would have to last at least 15 years for there to be a noticeable decrease in cervical cancer rates.  The only thing that the vaccination will decrease is your chances of having an irregular Pap result.  She also admits that the vaccine has been associated with Guillian-Barre Syndrome, which can be fatal.

If the essential admission here is that the vaccines are not effective, given that they only last for about five years, and Pap smears are more effective at preventing cervical cancer deaths, why in the world are we even thinking about giving this vaccine to our children?  The vaccines can result in blood clots (leg, arms, lungs, and heart), Guillian-Barre Syndrome, seizures, fainting, bleeding, changes in the menstrual cycle, joint pain, muscle pain, etc.  Why are we not simply continuing with yearly check-ups as a method of preventing advanced stages of cancer?  It seems as though this vaccine is being marketed as something that can prevent the transmission of STDs, and that is simply not the case.

It seems like a serious misjudgment on the part of a state government to allow 12-year-old children to get the vaccine without the parents’ permission.  Young children – and 12-year-olds are children, regardless of what anyone else thinks – are impressionable and often quite trusting.  We are trained by society to always believe the professional opinion of doctors and scientists.  But what if what they are telling us really isn’t in our best interests, but rather in the best interests of their wallets?  There is no proof that this vaccine is effective.  There is, however, a lot of proof that it causes serious side effects and even death.  Our children need to be educated about these so-called medicines from an early age.  If they are going to be allowed to make the decision for themselves, it’s our job to make sure that it’s an informed decision.

I have done a bit of research on vaccination generally, and it seems hard to find conclusive evidence that any vaccine is directly responsible for preventing illnesses.  That said, I think it’s going to require more research on my part before I make any posts about it here.  Until then, I am happy to recommend against this particular vaccine.  Gardasil and vaccines like it are doing more harm than good.  Big Pharma isn’t going to tell us the truth: it’s all about the Benjamins.  They do not have our best interests at heart, and it is up to us to do our research and make informed decisions before we put anything into our bodies.

Update:

I just ran across another bit of information which was compiled by a German homeopathic physician named Andreas Bachmair.  It follows several thousand children, vaccinated and unvaccinated.  The study has shown overwhelmingly in all categories that the unvaccinated children are healthier than those who received the vaccines.  Take a look.  This is pretty compelling stuff.

Reason #931 Why Rick Perry is Ridiculous: or Legalize it All NOW

There are a lot of things that I want to cover, but this article from the BBC, “Rick Perry suggests US military role in Mexico drug war” just made my eyes bug out.  I think Rick Perry is a horrible candidate for a lot of reasons, and this is just one more to add to the pile.  During a speaking engagement in New Hampshire, Perry apparently suggested that he would send US troops into Mexico to help contain the drug war and keep thugs off of our borders.

I think a person would have to be downright foolish at this point to believe that the so-called “war on drugs” has been anything other than a colossal failure.  Drug crime in Mexico is at an all-time high.  As of 2009, there were over 95,000 Americans in federal prison for drug-related offenses, and a disproportionate number of those individuals are minorities.  That means that there were – and likely still are – more people in the federal pen for drug crimes than for all other crimes, including violent ones, combined.  The US government has been outed by its own agents for running guns into Mexico on behalf of the drug cartels.  Forbes magazine has listed Sinaloa cartel kingpin Joaquin Guzman as one of its billionaires.  Do any of these facts point to the success of the drug war?

The US government has, according to this Fox news article, thrown over $1 trillion at the war on drugs over the past 40 years, and even the drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, has admitted that the whole thing has been a staggering failure.  The prosecution of non-violent drug crimes causes great strain on an already overburdened legal system, never mind the foolish waste of taxpayer dollars.  The cost of state and federal penitentiaries is staggering, and most states are at 90% capacity or greater in their prisons.  Of course, we haven’t even covered the cost of running the DEA, the marketing programs aimed to make people (especially youth) stop using drugs, and money spent in foreign countries like Colombia and Mexico in an attempt to reign in the problem.  All of this, and the rates of violent drug-related crime continue to rise, along with overdose and addiction rates.

I think another major issue, at least for the people of Mexico, is that their right to bear arms has been severely abridged by the Mexican government through subsequent amendments to the 1917 constitution.  As of right now, Mexican citizens may have guns, but only in their homes and for self-defense.  Said firearms are limited in size, and approval in Mexico City can take up to one month.  Also, there is only one gun store in Mexico City, which means that the supply falls quite short of the demand.  Carry permits are available, but most people are unable to obtain one, and if they do, the size of the pistol is limited to a 380.  (For more complete information, click here.)

What does this mean for Mexico?  Well, in short, it means that people in the streets have no means of defending themselves against the violent crime that is pervasive in several areas of Mexico.  It seems incredibly obvious to me that the only people being punished by these restrictions, however well intentioned they may have been, are the ordinary citizens.  Criminals, as a general rule, don’t obey the laws.  Why in the world do governments continue to foolishly believe that even criminals will obey gun restriction laws?  If anything, those laws work to the benefit of the criminals, who are allowed to do their business in relative peace and without fear of retribution from the victims.

And now, on top of all of this, we’ve got Governor Perry who wants to send US troops into Mexico.  Brilliant.

For one thing, that would violate Mexico’s sovereignty, and I have no doubt that their government wouldn’t be best pleased to see US troops marching over their border.  We all know what happens when US troops come marching over the border.  More importantly for the US, however, is the obvious monetary burden such an act would create – an act that couldn’t be tolerated by a system that is already falling apart under the strain of trying to support three wars and military installations in 130 countries.  To even entertain the idea of further troop deployment into another country is nothing short of lunacy.  Have I even mentioned what the cost in human lives would surely be?

Most of the Mexican drug cartels are extremely well equipped and have been sparring with the Mexican army and between themselves for years.  They have grenades, armor-piercing rounds, rocket launchers, and even so-called “narco submarines,” submersible boats that are difficult to detect with radar or sonar and can carry up to 26,000 pounds of cocaine.  Is Rick Perry seriously considering the possibility of sending our troops into the veritable jaws of death?  We’ve all heard the horrible reports on the news about the vicious murders of which these gangs are capable.

The solution to this problem lies not with troop deployment or spending money.  The answer is so exceedingly simple.  Just legalize it.  All of it.

I know that a lot of people are initially taken back by this proposition.  The idea of legalizing cocaine and heroine and opium and pot is not an idea that many care to entertain.  If it isn’t illegal, they wonder, won’t more people do it?  It seems to me that this notion doesn’t give people very much credit.  I will grant the reader the concession that there are a lot of stupid people wandering around on this planet.  How many people seriously believe that shooting heroin or doing lines like it’s Saturday night at The Boom Boom Room with Lindsay Lohan is a good idea?  Similarly, how many people think that getting drunk all the time is good for one’s health, or smoking pack after pack of cigarettes is healthy for the lungs?  Frankly, a person would have to have been living in a cave to believe such silliness.

The fact of the matter is that for most of its history, the US didn’t have much in the way of drug laws.  According to Wikipedia, the first known drug laws were written in San Francisco to combat opium dens, which were largely run by the immigrant Chinese, who smoked it.  Of course, laudanum, a tincture of opium and alcohol, was commonly prescribed to women for “female troubles” and was not regulated.  Most opium addicts in the US in the 19th century were women, incidentally.  Nonetheless, the rate of drug addiction was substantially lower, in spite of the fact that drugs were available.

Portugal decriminalized all street drugs (heroin, cocaine, LSD, opium, etc.) in 2001.  The rate of addiction and HIV cases spread through needle drugs is down substantially.  The Cato Institute has a report on it that is available here for download.  Instead of focusing on laws and prosecuting drug users, Portugal has decided to focus on treatment instead.  Portugal may have some problems right now, but they’ve got the right idea on this one.

One of the great side effects of legalization is that it immediately takes drugs away from the realm of the criminal black market, where prices are increased due to the risk of obtaining the drugs.  Prices are instantly lowered due to competition and availability.  Actually, if you look at it from this perspective, the biggest opponents to legalization would be the drug lords themselves, who are obviously making a killing (literally and figuratively) on the drug trade.

Just imagine how many lives could be saved and how much money freed up if we just decriminalized drugs!  Think of the number of cases that would never be tried, the number of people who would never see the inside of a jail cell, and the number of family members who wouldn’t have to bury someone they love.  We could spend that money paying down the debt.  We could allocate some of that money saved for treatment of addicts.

What goads me most about the situation is the fact that the lawmakers can’t look at Prohibition and Portugal and realize what needs to be done here.  Are these people not supposed to be intelligent?  Do they really believe that morality can be legislated?  The fact of the matter is that, when fully legalized, drugs, prostitution, and the like are victimless crimes.  They do no harm but perhaps to the individual who partakes in that activity.  It is of no concern to the rest of us, for it harms us in no appreciable way and abridges our rights in no way.  Why in the world do we care if our neighbor likes to have a joint once in awhile?  I don’t care if my neighbor smokes or has a beer or glass of wine after work.  For some people, those are merely a few of the simple pleasures that life has to offer.  Why deny people something they enjoy because it doesn’t fit into our system of morality?  We cannot judge others by the meter with which we use to judge ourselves.

Ultimately, I have to wonder if the government really is this stupid (very possible) or if they know what they are doing and there is some ulterior motive to all of this.  Is the government receiving some benefit from the war on drugs which is not easily seen?  Is a group of people not directly in the government deriving some benefit and doing everything it can to ensure that the system continues like it is?  Truly, I hope that is not the case, because it is high time (pun intended) that we do the right thing.  Legalize it all now.  That is truly the most moral thing to do.