Let's Get Retarded: Anti-Vaccine Group Claims Federal Law Trumps California's New Rule That Allows Girls to Get HPV-Prevention Drug

HPV does NOT cause cancer, these viruses are merely "Opportunistic", moving into cancer cells... to take advantage of the constant cloned supply of cells that all viruses need. HPV viruses are Planters Warts, which some people are familiar with, and that's what's getting inside girls during sex. Learn about the nature of the germ to know if a vaccine is hype for consumerism. 

The fact that millions of dollars are awarded by the Federal government  to the families of children "brain-injured" by vaccines each year must have been too deeply buried in the literature that I'm sure Mr. Romero must have done prior top writing this scathing piece of thoughtless propaganda thinly disguised as journalism. Shame on you.

Living with Herpes? Go to HerpesPal,com. Confidential and no discrimination! Find your match in local area. 

Most people have herpes/hiv/hpv may feel lonely and shamed. But 70 million are afflicted with STD in the U.S. alone and an estimated over 400 million worldwide. There is an exclusive community hsoulmate.com for singles and friends with STD. If you just need to find someone to talk to or need help or advice, this is the best place. Never feel lonely again! 

Not to mention if the child gets this vaccine because they do have a false sense of security that it will prevent them from getting hpv because that is the hogwash they will be told, do you really think they are going to tell their parents even if they think something is wrong?! Hell no. "Hi mom, I'm only 12 and I wanted to have sex and not get hpv, but I think I am having a bit of a problem."  DOUBT IT.  And do date based on VAERS reports (got this figure from CDC's own website) almost 19,000 reactions to this vaccine. 8% of those reactions were listed as "serious" as in permanent injury, hospitalization, and even death (68 deaths that are on record.)

Here's some info on the Democratic sponsor's campaign contributors:

http://maplight.org/california...

When the twelve year old has leg pain or generally feeling unwell - two of the listed possible side effects,which are reasons to consult your physician, but the family is at Grandma's for the weekend... and the twelve year old got the shot without her parent's consent.. what are the risks involved for her not telling her parents?

Start it with a lie and then introduce real and serious side effects, for which she will not get treatment because she'll have to admit to lying to her parents in the first place.  This law and the people who support it do have some sort of mental deficiency... not sure if it's retarded, or just an abundance of sand around their heads.

The only kind of vaccine that should be administered carte blanche is one that is extremely communicable and MUST be eradicated, like polio. This kind of vaccine seems optional, although I believe there are huge benefits in prevention. It's quite laughable that people are suggesting abstinence when their generation have been so permissive on disciplining their kids. They let their kids have their way since day 1, just look at the overwhelming discipline issues in the schools, and that's not going to change when the kids are teens.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could believe that ANYONE has a right to administer ANY medical "treatment" WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.  

Forget the fact that Gardasil is basically useless (based on real science, not corporate science), and has killed quite a few children (yes, really).  And forget the fact that the pushers of these laws are payed off by Merk (ahem, Rick Perry).  This is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue.  This is government saying it can do WHATEVER IT WANTS to protect the corporate interests that fund it.  If we continue to accept these infringements on our basic human rights, we will soon have none left.

I think it's clear that Dennis Romero couldn't give a flying phuck about parental rights or the safety of children, and probably has no idea that the HPV vaccine's efficacy tests haven't been done past 4 years and there is ZERO evidence to show any benefit to vaccinating 12 year old girls or whether this has ANY effect at all on cervical cancer 10 to 30 years later in life. But don't take my word for it, from the JAMA -

http://jama.ama-assn.org/conte...

The theory behind the vaccine is sound: If HPV infection can be prevented, cancer will not occur. But in practice the issue is more complex. First, there are more than 100 different types of HPV and at least 15 of them are oncogenic. The current vaccines target only 2 oncogenic strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18. Second, the relationship between infection at a young age and development of cancer 20 to 40 years later is not known. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime5​,6 The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7​,8 In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer. It is currently impossible to predict in which women this will occur and why. Likewise, it is impossible to predict exactly what effect vaccination of young girls and women will have on the incidence of cervical cancer 20 to 40 years from now. The true effect of the vaccine can be determined only through clinical trials and long-term follow-up.

(Given the vaccine was first licensed in 2006, what long-term follow-up has been done on the effects against HPV by vaccinating 12 year old girls?)

Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15​ So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine.

When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly.

This law is the perfect storm of governmental intrusion into the parent child relationship, the perversion of informed consent, and the subordination of individual rights and to special interests who are portected from liability. I will make no point by point argument with the author of the article since only a fool argues with an idiot. Lets just hope that one day it is his 12 year old who comes home from school vaccine injured, leaving him and his family with the consequences of laws like this. Let's see how snarky he is when it is his family that is devastated.

Sooooo the writer of this article is for state control of children over parental rule? Not only that but he is for a law that would make it easier for pedophiles to get away with giving a child an STD. Is the writer a pedophile himself? After all this law applies to 12 year olds. Furthermore if this jackass would have done his homework he would have found that every single aye vote for this horrible law was strictly within the lines of who took contributions from big pharma and who didnt.

I do not think that a 12 year old can make the decision alone or combat potential peer pressure, which is highly likely given the limited communication about risks to parents today on vaccination. And yes, we have had friends family members injured by vacciniation.

"And they're dealing not with the possibility of cancer, but the probability of cancer-like cells."

Come again? We are talking about young girls who are not even at risk for hpv until they have sex, and then there is a limited number that will get hpv, an even more limited number that would get one of the 3 strains protected by this virus, and an even more limited number that will develop cancer from one of those 3 strains. That comment doesn't even make sense. It's not probable, it's remote.

Is this article supposed to be Satire, or Were you drunk when you wrote this salacious piece of garbage? 

The fact that your opinions have seen the light of day demonstrates the lack of Editorial oversight necessary to rein in someone whose political perspectives outweigh any semblance of Health freedom, or medical integrity.

Romero, you are absolutely irresponsible.   

Children can't get their ears pierced without parental consent, but it's okay to have poisons injected into them?  What the hey?

Children need to be told two things:  vaccines are not safe, and the only surefire way to avoid STDs is--wait for it--ABSTINENCE!

How many strains of HPV are there? 100+. How many of those are cancer causing? 30.  How many strains are covered by Gardasil? FOUR. To suggest to MINOR CHILDREN that they won't get cancer if they get this vaccine is what is retarded.

LOL - your blog wreaks of ignorance. I'm glad that you believe that children should get medical treatment without their parents consent and without understanding the ramifications of side effects. That way when you send your kids to school, and there given some experimental new drug without your knowledge, you won't understand why he came home with a fever, or hives, or worse - irreversible damage to his body. Get your head out of the sand and do some research before you speak (or write). When did we all start treating the medical community like infallible gods?

Mr. Romero must subscribe to the ignorance is bliss theory.

No one has the right to give my child ANY, ANY medicine in any form without my written, documented permission. Period.