January 24, 2008

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against Dangerous Vaccines

Nationwide Revolt continues to grow as Presidential candidate denounces FDA and forced immunization

Steve Watson, Infowars.net

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoken out against forced vaccination and the federal government's eagerness to dictate what Americans may and may not put into their bodies.

The Congressman, a fully qualified obstetrics and gynecology doctor, made his position plain in an interview with the Huffington Post's election reporter James Freedman:

"I don't think anything should be forced on us by the government, [and] immunization is one thing that we're pressured and forced into," he said.

"A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."

Besides certain laws that apply only to government medical specialists - there is no law that enforces the mandatory use of any vaccine in the United States. Enforced medical treatment is an assault and a violation of the 14th amendment, the reason Ron Paul, a strict Constitutionalist, is so directly against it.

However, some in Washington seem determined to ignore the Constitution and to make some vaccinations (usually the most profitable ones) mandatory.

There has recently been a spate of cases where officials, with the assistance of directed media propaganda, have attempted to cajole parents into believing that laws require vaccination.

Last February one such media hoax fooled parents in Texas and other areas of the country into believing that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed as untested and has continued to be linked to dangerous side-effects, is now required by law and that young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals hit the headlines after it was revealed that the company was set to capitalize on this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick Perry, while children were put at risk.

Last November we reported on a case in Prince George's County, Maryland, where parents of more than 1600 children were told they could be put in jail for failing to get their kids vaccinated. At the time a local Fox News affiliate reported, "A new law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to have the vaccine," which was a total lie. A state prosecutor involved in the case then admitted that there is no law that mandates any vaccine.

In addition there is a plethora of examples where vaccines containing mercury, live HIV virus, live cancer and other horrors have wrought misery after victims were bullied into taking them by government mandates that they were deluded into thinking was the law.

Concerned parents across the U.S. are leading a nationwide revolt against unnecessary, untested and dangerous vaccines as CDC records show a growing amount of religious exemptions on vaccine forms. Adults too are turning away from personal vaccination.

Ron Paul also spoke of the dangerous precedent being set in allowing the FDA strict controls over the health of Americans and how such a scenario is a dream come true for the big pharmaceutical corporations the FDA shares a bed with:

"If we accept this notion that the federal government is going to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then it leads to the next step: that the government is going to regulate everything that is supposedly good for us. That's where they are. They have an FDA that won't allow somebody who's dying to use an experimental drug which might speed up the process of finding out which drugs are good and which drugs are bad and the federal government comes in and dictates that they want complete control over vitamins and nutritional products and I just think the whole principal of government telling us what we can take in or not take in is just a dangerous position to take... it's related to the drug industry because they'd like to control all of this."

Paul is right to point out that the relationship that now exists between the FDA and big pharma is tantamount to a business partnership.

The FDA now effectively protects and nurtures the monopoly of big pharma in the name of regulating its activities.

It is well known that the giant pharmaceuticals routinely fix and mark up prices of prescription drugs as much as 500,000% over the cost of the raw ingredients, and they engage in monopolistic, mob-like behaviors to block competing, lower cost drugs from other countries.

All of this is effectively sanctioned by the FDA.

Presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards advocate a continuation of this monopolistic status quo via their visions for a FDA state-managed socialized health care system where every citizen in the U.S. would have to enroll for regular check ups, including mandatory mental screenings, a practice Ron Paul also speaks out against:

"The other thing they're doing right now is the government's doing this mental health testing of everybody in school and they're putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic drugs, which I think are very, very dangerous. So anything medical that is forced on us I think is bad."

The Congressman is the only candidate who has envisioned a health care system without strict federal regulation and without the resulting big pharma monopoly. As consumer health advocate Mike Adams at newstarget has pointed out:

Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in health freedom. All the other candidates would support the status quo in health care today: Big Pharma dominance, FDA censorship, monopoly prices in medicine and the assault and imprisonment of individuals who dare to tell the truth about the healing properties of the superfoods and nutritional supplements they sell. The other candidates may talk about "reforms," but all they're really talking about is a shell game of shifting who pays for all disease in this country.

Only Ron Paul believes in genuine health freedom. He's the creator of the Health Freedom Protection Act, a bill that would reestablish Free Speech provisions for makers of superfoods, herbs, nutritional supplements and other natural remedies. Under the HFPA, those individuals would be able to state scientifically-validated facts about the health benefits of their products right on the bottle! Today, the FDA doesn't allow that. All truthful statements about nutritional supplements are presently censored! (It's a way to protect Big Pharma and keep the American people ignorant about how plant-based medicines can prevent and even cure degenerative disease.)

The establishment candidates are promoting a huge monopolistic and federalized profit machine when it comes to health care in America, while once again Ron Paul is truly speaking to the needs and desires of the people in accordance with Constitutional law.

January 19, 2008

Boston Globe - Tainted Smallpox Vaccine

www.Boston.com, The Associated Press
Veteran wants more ex-military people in college

HANOVER, N.H. --Ex-Marine Brendan Hart is on a new mission -- to get more veterans to college, especially those have been injured.

The Dartmouth College student is one of three ex-Marines on campus. He's working with a program of the American Council on Education that reaches out to recent veterans to try to get them into college.

"Our country has an untapped resource in the service members who are transferring out" of the military, said Hart, who served in the Marines from November 2003 to November 2006.

World War II veterans were called the Greatest Generation because "when they came back they were educated," Hart said. "Now these guys transferring out have to fight tooth and nail to get into schools they may not want to go to."

With hundreds of thousands of troops circulating through Iraq and Afghanistan, "we have the same opportunity now" as the country did in the 1940s, Hart said. Not getting more veterans into school, he said, is doing the country a disservice.

Only about 10 percent of veterans go back to school, Hart said. As of last month, the American Council on Education had helped nearly 200 military personnel seriously injured in Iraq or Afghanistan and their families get into institutions of higher education.

The ACE program got off the ground with help from Dartmouth President James Wright, who began visiting hospitalized veterans in 2005. Wright, an ex-Marine himself, has raised $350,000 for the program, which is running at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, Brooke Army Hospital in Texas and Balboa Naval Hospital in California.

Although Hart, 25, wasn't wounded in combat, health problems he contracted in the military have stayed with him. A tainted smallpox vaccine he and roughly 50 other Marines were given in Virginia induced anaphylactic shock.

"The vaccine systematically destroyed my systems," he said, affecting his respiratory, immune and skeletal function. "It was kind of an all-encompassing problem," one that still has him making regular visits to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.

While he was being treated at Walter Reed, Hart enrolled at the University of Maryland. He started a program there to bring in more veterans.

He met Wright during his hospital stay.

Hart and Wright said the country needs to do more to get veterans to continue their education.

"The current GI Bill is not as generous as the World War II GI Bill was," Wright said. Servicemen have to enroll early in their enlistment and have to sink $100 a month into a fund, not an easy decision on a military salary, he said.

Most of those who enlist don't plan to go to college, so they don't sign up for GI Bill benefits, Wright said. Even those who apply get only $1,000 a month, far less than it costs to attend even most state universities.

"I think we need to find better ways to make this investment," Wright said. The country could significantly bolster education benefits for veterans with an annual infusion of the amount of money currently spent in a week on the war in Iraq, he said.

Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have sponsored legislation that would furnish today's veterans with GI Bill benefits similar to those the World War II generation enjoyed -- full tuition and fees and a monthly stipend.

There are natural barriers between service members and higher education, Hart said. Many have outdated SAT scores, or have never taken the SAT. "A high school transcript is not exactly a fair representation of someone who has served four years or eight years in the military, but that's the standard that higher education uses," he said.

Some schools such as Dartmouth pride themselves on using a "holistic" evaluation of applicants to make up its incoming classes. Under such a system, a veteran might receive a small boost. "I would hope so," Wright said, adding that a recent veteran can bring a unique perspective to campus.

Hart said he feels an obligation to veterans, and hopes he can be an example.

"I felt that if I came to an Ivy League school, performed well academically, participated in student affairs, that I would be able to set a trend that others would be able to follow," he said.

January 14, 2008

ACLU Report: Government Must Abandon Misguided Approach to Pandemic Preparedness

ACLU Report: Government Must Abandon Misguided Approach to Pandemic Preparedness

CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – As fears of a flu pandemic have grown, the Bush administration has pursued a misguided approach to pandemic preparation that relies on a law enforcement/national security approach, rather than a public health approach to the problem, and which exposes Americans to unnecessary risk. That is the finding of an expert report being released today by the American Civil Liberties Union at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

“A law enforcement approach is just the wrong tool for the job when it comes to fighting disease,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program. “History makes clear that a heavy-handed, coercive approach to pandemics that treats the sick as potential enemies is not only an unnecessary violation of civil liberties but is also ineffective from a public health standpoint and will leave more Americans stranded, sick and untreated.”

The report was prepared for the ACLU by three prominent experts on the subject: George Annas and Wendy K. Mariner of Boston University School of Public Health, and Wendy E. Parmet of Northeastern Law School.

“When people are sick, they want help – help getting treated and help ensuring they don’t make others sick,” said Parmet. “History shows that treating sick people like potential enemies only spurs them to avoid the authorities and exacerbates the spread of disease.”

The report was being released today in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC, followed by a panel discussion with several top experts.

“It is true that there are always a few cases where individuals flout the law and put other people at risk,” said Parmet. “But existing government authorities provide ample powers for dealing with such cases – and the problem is that our pandemic preparations are being centered around such contingencies, rather than from the long list of gaping needs that public health experts say we face in preparing for and responding to a real pandemic.”

The report is online at http://www.aclu.org/privacy/medical/33642pub20080114.html

Video of an ACLU-hosted panel discussion featuring Parmet and other experts discussing pandemic preparedness will be made available online at www.aclu.org/future.

Do U.S. pandemic plans threaten rights, ACLU asks


By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. policy in preparing for a potential bird flu pandemic is veering dangerously toward a heavy-handed law-enforcement approach, the American Civil Liberties Union said on Monday.

The group, which advocates for individuals' legal rights based on the U.S. Constitution, said federal government pandemic plans were confusing and could emphasize a police and military approach to outbreaks of disease, instead of a more sensible public health approach.

"Rather than focusing on well-established measures for protecting the lives and health of Americans, policymakers have recently embraced an approach that views public health policy through the prism of national security and law enforcement," the ACLU report reads.

But the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the group had misunderstood the government's approach and said current plans already incorporate many of the ACLU's recommendations.

Infectious disease experts agree that a pandemic of some sort of influenza is inevitable, and most worries focus on H5N1 avian influenza. Although it mainly attacks birds, the virus has infected 349 people since 2003 and killed 216 of them.

A few mutations could turn it into a highly infectious disease for people and could kill millions globally.

Most countries are working to develop plans to deal with the potential consequences. The U.S. plans are available on Web sites such as http://pandemicflu.gov.

The ACLU said it was worried that the plan called for military and police involvement in enforcing a quarantine.

The ACLU experts said they were especially disturbed by an October executive order from President George W. Bush that directed HHS to establish a task force to plan for potential catastrophes like a terrorist attack, pandemic influenza or a natural disaster that would ensure full use of Department of Defense resources.

The Bush order does not specify what the Department of Defense role would be, but also mentions military medical research facilities that have played a role in health for decades.

"Pandemic planning today tends to emphasize mandatory vaccination and forced treatment," the ACLU's Tania Simoncelli told a news conference.

"It also means that sick people are being treated as criminals and enemies of the state rather than individuals in need of care."

The ACLU said plans should focus on how to help people stay home without losing pay, and instead of merely advising citizens to stockpile food, should provide for ways to help them do so.

HHS spokesman Bill Hall said the government plan stressed community and individual involvement.

"They have mischaracterized our planning efforts. They are confusing a containment attempt as our overall pandemic response once the virus has spread beyond our ability to stop it," Hall said in a telephone interview.

"Respecting civil liberties has been an important component of our pandemic planning."

He said many of the recommendations ACLU makes, such as voluntary vaccination and treatment, were in the plan.

(Editing by Will Dunham and Philip Barbara)

January 6, 2008

Gardasil® and Free Choice: Holy Grail or Population Control?

Gardasil® and Free Choice: Holy Grail or Population Control?
PJ Langhoff

“I want to be one less.” You’ve probably seen the commercial with many young, hip, smiling female faces making paid declarations of interest in big pharma’s newest vaccine brainchild, Gardasil. Developed by Merck & Company, Inc., (Whitehouse Station, New Jersey), Gardasil is the promise of a new horizon in preventative female reproductive cancer medicine. It is actively being served to the masses in palatable 60-second segments of expensive air time. These commercials are designed to convince young women and their parents that cervical cancer is the new “boogey-man” threatening their existence. No need to fear, Gardasil is here as a “safe” and “effective” preventative vaccine. The consensus is that recipients will be “one less” victim of cervical cancers, but is the vaccine truly safe, effective, or even necessary?

Has anyone else noticed that American television ads seem primarily funded by big-name pharmaceutical companies attempting to reach a mass consumer market and create a demand for their products? The mindset being broadcast into our homes is, “Do you have any of these symptoms? Then try our product, we’re on your side.” Listening closely, you hear a gentle, reassuring voice ramble off a long list of side-effects which seem far worse than most of the symptoms we already may have. But the images of smiling people leading picturesque lives, quickly reassure the less in tune that drug companies have our best interests at heart. And perhaps they do, or perhaps not.

From their perspective (in my opinion), consumers are sheep, (commonly referred to as sheep-le) able to be directed into our cars to run, (not walk) to our nearest managed-care facility, pay a co-pay, smile at our privileged 5-minute face time with our physician while we happily diagnose our own ills and request pharmaceuticals by name. Many doctors are happy to write a prescription for the symptoms we explain so eloquently because we saw them first on TV, and because many are receiving incentives from their drug suppliers, like free lunches, and financial and other perks of the sort I cannot mention here. In fact, when I must go to the doctor’s office, I cringe at the sight of whom I consider the new drug “pushers”, a/k/a pharmaceutical reps who seem to have carte blanche over my appointment time slot that I waited for up to a month to get. In fact, big Pharma’s brazen presence in my physician’s office causes within me a form of intellectual nausea untreatable by any prescription, even those recommended on TV.

Any time I learn of yet another vaccine, my knee-jerk reaction is, “Great, now what are ‘they’ (big Pharma and/or perhaps some oft government-funded body) trying to do to us now?” Like many Americans, I believe that drug commercials and the permeating presence of Pharma in medical centers are having quite the opposite reaction than intended. People do not want to see drug advertisements on television and do not want to be told what medicines or vaccines are “good” for them. Indeed many of us can, and do prefer to think for ourselves, thank you very much. Personally, I find it insulting that certain corporate giants imply that consumers are not intelligent enough to understand the bodies they inhabit, or otherwise determine their own health needs, and that the manufacturers must do it for us.

I spent a little time studying the Gardasil vaccine (and others), and present some of my findings here for your examination. Pardon me if there is a subtle detectable prejudice for self-preservation as an undertone. It is hard to be objective when you see apparent negativity about a product, even when FDA-approved. I am not a doctor, therefore you must do your homework and decide what is right for you or your child(ren).

HPV is short for the human papillomavirus, one of the causative agents of cervical cancer. According to the FDA, cervical cancer is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. It is estimated by the CDC that approximately 6 million Americans become infected with this family of viruses each year. About 9,000 new cases of cervical cancer are reported in the U.S. annually, with an approximate one-third mortality rate. Across the globe, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women, with about a half million new cases each year. In general, routine Pap tests remain an important (but not 100% accurate) screening tool to detect precancerous changes in cervical cells that may develop into cancer. It is recommended to have a Pap test annually, once a woman becomes sexually active, or beginning around age 21. Men also transmit the virus, however there is currently no official test to screen males. A study was published out of the Pathology Dept. of West Virginia University (Urology, 1991 Feb; 37(2):110-5), describing the immunostaining of urethral smears for HPV antigens. This process proved to be more sensitive than conventional observations, including visual examinations. Unfortunately this technique is not routinely used in male reproductive health exams. Perhaps it may prove to be a useful tool which should be considered.

There are different types of HPV virus, and the Gardasil vaccine addresses four of them. Types 6 and 11 cause about 90% of genital warts; and types 16 and 18, cause about 70% of cervical cancers. The vaccine is administered intramuscularly as a series of three injections over a six-month period. Costs for the vaccine are $300-$500. Since males can transmit HPV to females, studies are underway to determine if the vaccine would be safe and effective for men. Trials are underway to study the vaccine in young men ages 16-23 years of age. Gardasil is only approved for use in females at this time, between the ages of 9 and 26.[1] Like most parents, I have more than one young adult child fitting neatly into this wide age bracket. And with the skyrocketing rates of infertility climbing in today’s generation, as a mother I would have concerns about a vaccine being promoted as a “safe and effective” preventative for any reproductive purposes, especially when I find much indicating that vaccines may contain various contaminants, leading to unknown autoimmune or other illnesses.

The FDA approved the vaccine in June of 2006. Gardasil was determined to be “safe” after evaluations of about 11,000 study individuals. Most adverse experiences in study participants were limited to “mild” or “moderate” local reactions, like pain or injection site tenderness. This would seem to put the mind of women at ease, right? Read on. Although the FDA claims that the vaccine is “safe,” it also noted “compelling evidence” that it could actually make cancer worse in women who were already exposed to HPV when they received the vaccine.[2] And most people who have HPV are unaware they are infected. The FDA stipulated, and manufacturer Merck agreed to continue studies to further evaluate the vaccine’s safety and long-term efficacy. The company will also monitor the pregnancy outcomes in women who unknowingly become pregnant, who subsequently receive the vaccine.

This makes me feel more than a bit nervous about the reproductive consequences of an entire generation of young women (and men if approved for that use), with voluntary (or mandatory) involvement in a global laboratory experiment...especially when governments are pushing for compulsory vaccinations which have less than adequate safety studies.

After learning recently that certain vaccines may have had unintended contaminants in them like hCG, I feel grave concern over vaccines in general. Human chorionic gonadotropin hormone is responsible for aspects of egg maturity and ovulation, and the administration of it as an “unintended” contaminant in tetanus vaccines issued to women in the Phillipines, is shocking. Many women receiving these vaccines are said to have been caused to become sterile.[3] The ability to utilize hCG as a contraceptive in women was known several years previous to a 1997 article, published by the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, out of the National Institute of Immunology in New Delhi, India. From this article’s abstract, we learn of the utilization of hCG in tetanus, and diphtheria vaccines.[4] How do we as parents, know whether hCG has been deliberately or “accidentally” snuck into the newest vaccines also geared toward the supposed “health” of young women, including Gardasil, and which may therefore cause an epidemic of infertility in the next generation? Infertility rates in our nation have already skyrocketed. Who’s to say that the vaccinations we received as children didn’t already contain agents designed to cause a decrease in population?

The idea of forced vaccinations and possible involuntary “experimentation” by pharmaceutical companies on the human population, brings up civil rights issues of the right to be informed of the ingredients of the medications and vaccines we receive, as well as whether we wish to relinquish the right to decide our own medical care to any government entity. When asked, most people do not want medical or reproductive choices being dictated, mandated, or hidden for any reason within drugs, vaccines, or other medical delivery devices without our consent. Our desire for freedom of choice is made stronger when we know that pharmaceutical companies stand to profit in the billions of dollars for mandated vaccines and other devices, whether “safe and effective,” or not. And history has shown that the vaccine process in general, is embroiled in controversy, with long-term consequences poorly understood and much profit being made at the expense of human lives.

According to the watchdog organization Judicial Watch, 3,461 complaints have been filed with VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Report System) since Gardasil’s June 8, 2006 approval. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the adverse event reports suggest that “the vaccine not only causes serious side-effects, but might even be fatal.”[5] So far 11 women were reported to have died after exposure to the vaccine. The complaints more than doubled compared to the original 1,637 adverse events reported by the Alliance for Human Research Protection, of which 371 were serious, including 3 deaths. For example, one female patient died of a blood clot 3 hours after the vaccine injection; and two girls, aged 12 and 19, died from heart problems and/or blood clotting. A VAERS report shows a 17-year old girl died the same evening she received the first dose of Gardasil, and her cause of death was listed as “unknown.” It was noted that she had dental surgery a day before the vaccine.

Another VAERS report lists an 11-year old girl who died within days of receiving Gardasil. Her cause of death was noted by her physician as “due to an anaphylactic reaction to Gardasil”.[6] A May 10 to September 7, 2007 VAERS report obtained from the FDA shows a 22-year old woman who received the vaccine May 21, and died 2 days later. An autopsy report showed “no findings,” and the party reporting the death said the vaccine was “not” the causative factor. How would they know, I ask, when the autopsy doesn’t prove a relationship either way?

Of 77 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 33 had side effects. Of 42 women vaccinated while pregnant or around the time of conception, the FDA reported that 23 had complications ranging from miscarriage to birth defects in their children. Nevertheless, vaccine manufacturer Merck says that birth defects caused by the vaccine it developed were “highly unlikely.”[7] Other side effects reported as a result of receiving the vaccine, were paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, seizures, blood clotting and circulation disorders, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. According to the FDA in documents received by a Judicial Watch FOIA request, an October 4 report indicated that since May 15, 2007, there have been an additional 1,824 reports of Gardasil vaccine adverse events. Unfortunately, the FDA only supplied partial records to the FOIA request. On October 3, 2007, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the FDA to force full compliance to the FOIA request as required by law.

There are insufficient long-term safety and efficacy studies, and an article in the New England Journal of Medicine questioned the general effectiveness of the vaccine. Filed with the FDA/CBER (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research), is an executive summary including the duration of efficacy. It notes, “No immune correlation of protection was identified from the Phase III trials.” It also notes a “higher proportion of cases of respiratory illnesses and gastroenteritis among infants of mothers who were administered Gardasil during the time they were breastfeeding their infants,” and discusses adverse events, including fetal abnormalities and recipient deaths.

According to the summary, Merck is collaborating with four Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland) to assess the long-term outcomes of 5,500 recipients of the vaccine over a period of 14 years. If approved by the European Union, the Norwegian government intends to incorporate HPV vaccination into its national guidelines.[8] Vaccinations are already compulsory in Australia and are becoming so in the UK and Europe, although parents and children are largely protesting the intrusion on the “right to choose.”

The vaccine has not been tested for effectiveness in girls, such as those as young as 9. The youngest girls participating in clinical trials were ages 11-12, but the vaccine is approved in children as young as 9; an age group not studied. Without good evidence of side effects and safety, it is astounding that governments are attempting to mandate the vaccine. Still, several U.S. state and local governments have requested that the vaccine become mandatory. On September 12, 2006, Michigan became the first state to propose compulsory vaccination in girls entering the 6th grade. Fortunately, provisions in the bill were given for parents wishing to opt-out as in other vaccines. New Mexico followed suit. In Texas, Governor Rick Perry bypassed the legislative process entirely and issued an executive order mandating vaccination against HPV for girls entering sixth grade as of September 2008. He was accused of sidetracking parents’ rights groups and any legislative opposition by doing this; in effect, making HPV a public health issue of greater significance than parents’ rights to decide medical care for their children.

Recent events in Prince George County, Maryland, prove that those who have no business mandating vaccines, like school boards or county governments, are attempting to side step the rights of parents to choose whether their children should receive vaccines. Under strong threat, many parents felt coerced into giving their children vaccines they otherwise might not have chosen. Indeed, parents had been ordered to appear before a court hearing to prove their children were compliant with state requirements on vaccinations, or face fines and/or jail time. The process of immunization felt to many like a “cattle line” according to a Christian Science Monitor News article. Protesters outside the courthouse claimed parents were not adequately informed of their right to opt-out of the vaccine for religious or medical reasons, and were also not informed of possible harm to their children before receiving the vaccine. As a result, about 100 children received vaccines in November, under what many might call “less than optimum freedom of choice” conditions.

As reported in Reuters February 21, 2007, after pressure from religious organizations and parents, vaccine manufacturer Merck & Co. decided to “re-evaluate” its lobbying practices to make Gardasil mandatory. This is good news for parents and children alike, especially when there is such fierce opposition to the removal of a basic freedom – the right to choose. The problems with compulsory vaccinations go beyond religious or public health concerns. The mandatory assignment of any medical initiative removes the basic civil rights of patients and places our freedom of choice into the hands of government. It is not, and should not be, the right of the government to determine what should or should not be within our own bodies, and we must not relinquish our rights to freedom of choice.

Removing our freedoms are not only fundamentally, morally, and in our country, constitutionally wrong, it is dangerous in my opinion. Especially when we have governments being lobbied by powerful pharmaceutical companies contributing billions of dollars for pharma-friendly legislation designed to net tremendous profits for the vaccine manufacturers, and having unknown risks, including death, for untold populations. The mandating of vaccines on the global population turns civilians into nothing more than laboratory rats to be freely experimented on by pharmaceutical companies and governments alike.

Did you know that it is said that HPV can be treated by anti-viral herbs? Herbs which have been traditionally used include Garlic, Lemon Balm, Thuja, Hyssop and Pau d’Arco. Pau d’Arco has actually been used to prevent HPV infection, as well as cure it. Pau d’Arco was described in 1873 by Dr. Joaquin Almeida Pinto, for treatment of herpes, eczema and other disorders. In the 1960’s in Brazil, two physicians proved the herb had the ability to cure viral-caused warts. Other physicians in Argentina and the US have worked for decades to show that this herb has properties which heal the entire body. It is now used for AIDS, allergies, infectious diseases, asthma, candidia, Parkinson’s disease and a host of other infections and conditions, including warts, skin sores and HPV. It is commonly taken as a tincture or a tea. More importantly, no serious side-effects have been reported from its use.[9]

If we stretch the imagination, the mandating of vaccines is just one not-so-subtle step closer to total population control. Is that really what we want? We are being programmed to “accept” these activities beginning with the media visiting our very own living rooms, under the guise of protection from the “boogey-man”, and in this case, the current agenda is HPV. In reviewing Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) documents, the root of the push for global vaccines may be more encompassing, and sinister than imagined. In a letter dated 11/9/06 from Past President Martin J. Blaser to Chairman Jerry Lewis, House Appropriations Committee in Washington D.C., Blaser informs Mr. Lewis of the following. “As you are aware, the recent budget increases for the CDC stem from large earmarks for bioterrorism preparedness, the strategic national stockpile and other specific priorities.” In the letter, Blaser requests an “immediate appropriation of an additional $3 million” for the CDC to begin surveying adolescent immunization rates. Blaser indicates that the CDC is suffering “severe fiscal constraints and ongoing reductions at a time when vaccine needs are growing due to the licensing of several new vaccines including those recommended for adolescents and children.”[10] This would imply that because vaccine manufacturers have licensed new vaccines, societies have the right to, and must therefore push for their implementation. This would not imply that HPV or any other “health threat” actually exists. But the ability to manufacture a “perceived threat” to both the American people and its government, is the art and science of planning future research, grant and special-interest appropriations. The cycle of product/demand/funding self-perpetuates.

Another IDSA letter not authored by Blaser was sent to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Dr. W. Craig Vanderwagen, discussing the pandemic influenza implementation plan as part of the White House’s Homeland Security Council Biodefense Directorate. Although the body of the letter emphasizes influenza, it also encourages the department to “consider new paradigms,” and discusses implementation planning, including with a National Biodefense Science Board soon established under BARDA. While I understand the need for preparedness such as with influenza, at what point will the flu vaccine also become compulsory? And subsequent biodefense vaccines such as anthrax? The thinking may be if “we” can get the public to accept compulsory vaccines as “innocuous” as Gardasil, driven by carefully engineered “public health necessity,” how much of a step then is it for us to accept globally mandated vaccinations? Under the guise of “protection” we find a brilliant opportunity for pharmaceutical companies (and the governments and researchers who hold patent interests in vaccines), to exploit populations for trillions of dollars. I am beginning to see a pattern here, and it seems to be more in the line of profit, and not necessarily public health threat or safety.

Gardasil uses a new technology called a “nanoparticle” vaccine that is essentially more effective and cost-effective than past vaccine technologies. The U.S. government holds Patent #7,285,289 Nanoparticle vaccines, which was patented in part from work partially supported by the National Institutes of Health under contract PO1AI37194. The US holds “certain rights” to the invention. Nanoparticle vaccines can be developed for a broad array of infectious diseases, including HPV, influenza, and even bioagents such as tularemia and anthrax. But the process to “get” people to accept mandatory vaccinations is only in the beginning stages. If we accept Gardasil, next perhaps may come Influenza, and then mandatory vaccinations across the board. Then reproductive ability may be subsequently curbed due to yet more government mandates.

Am I sounding too sci-fi? Well, the point is this. When we relinquish our rights to choose, then choices are made for us. And those choices, whether “safe and effective” or not, are going to be made by governments and pharmaceutical companies alike whose for-profit interests may supercede public interests. At this rate, without cautious movement forward with the intent to protect our civil rights to choose, we may yet live to see the day where our younger generation says “I want to be one less.” But the meaning of those words will not be one less victim of cervical cancer, but perhaps one less citizen who has the right to choose.


[1] FDA. Product Approval Information – Licensing Action. Questions and Answers. Available at: www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm.

[2] FDA. New Vaccine Prevents Cervical Cancer. Sept-Oct 2006 FDA Consumer magazine. Access: www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2006/506_cervical.html

[3] Tetrahedron Publishing Group. HcG Vaccine for Population Control. [web site] Access: www.tetrahedron.org

[4] Talwar GP, Singh OM, Gupta SK, et al. The HSD-hCG vaccine prevents pregnancy in women: feasibility study of a reversible safe contraceptive vaccine. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1997 Feb;37(2):153-60. Access: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

[5] Judicial Watch [web site] Access: www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil.shtml

[6] VAERS Line List Report. Access: www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/ GardasilVAERSUpdatedDeaths0907.pdf

[7] Assoc. Content. Cervical Cancer Vaccine and the Controversies. [Internet article]. Access: www.associatedcontent.com/article/34830/cervical_cancer_vaccine_and_the_controversies.html?page=2

[8] FDA/CBER Executive Summary on Gardasil. Access: www.fda.gov/cber/sba/hpvmer060806s.pdf

[9] News Target. 8 More Deaths Caused by Gardasil Bringing Total Number to 11. [web article] Access: www.newstarget.cvom/022140.html

[10] IDSA Letter dated 11/9/06. Access: www.idsociety.org/archive.aspx?fid=16