It’s frustrating being a non-believer – an atheist in the Church of Environmentalism. “Have you switched to the new lights yet?” No, they are annoying and I just prefer to turn my lights off to save energy money. Yes, I’m a non-believer – or perhaps an agnostic because I believe the climate might be changing, but I don’t believe that man is the cause. I’m a “Denier.”
All deniers aren’t equal opportunity deniers, and an all-purpose stigma inhibits rational argument. We see this illustrated on Page One every morning. Skeptics of global warming are compared to Holocaust deniers. The ecologically correct become eco-heresy hunters determined to silence anyone who questions their evidence, flimsy and questionable or not. Any human destruction of nature is described as “ecocide” (like genocide.) When David Irving was sentenced to prison in Austria as a “Holocaust denier” an Australian journalist suggested making climate-change denial a similar offense. An Internet commentator wants global-warming deniers to be tried like Nazi war criminals.
But how can I be a denier when the “scientists” and Al Gore evangelize in the newpapers, on television, and in flashy documentaries? And now, the IPCC – the Church of Environmentalism’s own Council of Nicea, just issued its own Catechism, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. The heretics are already daring to dispute it.
Imagine that the results of some scientific research are relevant for policymaking. What is the right ordering of the events? Do we first find out the technical results by the scientific method and determine the conclusions for policymaking afterwards, or do we first determine what the conclusions for policymaking should be, and then do the research so that it will agree with the policymaking goals?
That’s a stupid question, isn’t it?
I guess that most high-energy physicists and perhaps even most scientists would answer that the first scenario is correct while the second one violates every basic principle of science. It is simply impossible to assure that scientific research will confirm some predetermined political conclusions without committing scientific fraud. The whole point of scientific work of any kind is that it can change some of the assumptions we started with. And any research usually does change these things unless it is useless.
Steve McIntyre has figured out that the climate science follows very different rules than science. On 2/2/2007, i.e. next Friday, the summary of the IPCC international climate report for policymakers will be released. However, the full report won’t be released until May 2007. What will the IPCC people do in these three months? Well, the answer can be found on page “4 of 15″ of this
Search for “grammatical”. It explains their version of the scientific method unambiguously:
- Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
The new new math of the IPCC holy documents:
Because the summary for policymakers is a Holy Scripture and the researchers now have 3 months to make the full report consistent, it is clear that they will have to change some rules of mathematics. Open the SPM, go to the page 5 of 21 and you will find Table SPM-0 there. The fifth line claims to be the sum of the previous four contributions to the sea level rise. However, for example in the 1993-2003 column, it would require 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 to be equal to 0.28 instead of 0.657. Note that with the value 0.657, the predicted value would differ from the observed value by more than five observed sigmas.
Also, the sum of four terms seems to be 5-10 times more accurate than the error of the Antarctic contribution. What a miraculous way of adding things. An average climate scientist would fix these problems simply by adding some random zeros to the Greenland or Antarctic contribution, to obtain an agreement. However, you can’t mess up with the summary, a Holy Scripture. So what must happen according to their rules is that the full report will prove that 0.16+0.077+0.21+0.21 = 0.28. I am sure that they will find some climate scientists if not mathematicians who will defend the consensus that this sum is different than your calculator would expect. I hope that many people will be looking forward to this new breakthrough in mathematics proving that the climate change is more catastrophic and the underlying science is more solid than anyone has ever anticipated.
Shall we see Dr. Christopher Landsea laicized for having the audacity to resign from the IPCC while pointing out its politicization? (The letter is long, but well worth reading in its entirety.)
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author – Dr. Kevin Trenberth – to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent the Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights”, as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has and used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation – though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Is there a fiery stake awaiting Henrik Svensmark for daring to point out a “round world?”
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challengedThe sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.
He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.
The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.
In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.
There Church of Environmentalism/Global Warming has many heretics and I’m happy to be one of them. If you’ve got the time – please read this interview, The Politics of Global Warming, with Timothy Ball, PhD (PhD in Climatology from the University of London and was a professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years).
It’s a matter of odds. If you spend a certain amount of time each day saying awful things about people, mocking them for laughs – odds are, your timing is really going to stink and well, you’ll pull a “Rosie.”
[youtube sXR7Y-YJZkU The View Morning of February 8, 2007]
Is the following supposed to be apologetic in her twisted way? Instead she seems as if she’s trying to justify her drug remarks and her portrayal of a dazed and incoherent Anna Nicole Smith.
Posted by ro on February 9th at 10:15am in in the news
CLAIM: SMITH CHOKED ON HER OWN VOMIT…
CBS: Investigators found illegal narcotics, prescription meds in room…
Mother Blames Drugs…
Lawyer vows no DNA sample…
Battle Over $1.6 Billion Fortune Brewing…
Autopsy to Be Performed…
She Died Like Marilyn…
Final Footage Sells for Over $500,000…
Rosie Rants On Anna Nicole — Hours Before Her Death…
No, silly me – that was no apology. She was going for the justification. Later that same day, she enters her own trascript into her blog:
Posted by ro on February 9th at 6:25pm in in the news
ME: BIG THINGS GOING ON IN THE NEWS. IF I HAVE TO SEE ANNA NICOLE SMITH ONE MORE TIME ON TELEVISION. THAT WOMAN AND HER PATERNITY TEST. .. AND SHE CAN HARDLY EVEN SPEAK NOW. SHE CAN’T EVEN SPEAK. SHE’S LIKE (I DO A BLANK AND MUMBLE INTO THE CAMERA) …YOU KNOW IT’S A TRAGEDY ALL AROUND. ..HER SON DIED. SHE HAS THIS LITTLE BABY. THERE’S OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF MEDICATION OR SUBSTANCE INVOLVED. I DON’T KNOW.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: THAT’S AN ODD SITUATION.
KRISTIN CHENOWETH: OR NOT INVOLVED
ME: OR NOT INVOLVED, EVEN WORSE. BUT IT’S SORT OF LIKE DISTRACTING. THE ART OF DISTRACTION. THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REAL.
ME: I THINK OUR CULTURE NOW.
EH:YOU THINK THE THE REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING ANNA NICOLE ON THE TV ?
JOY BEHAR: YOU CAN’T BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR EVERYTHING.
EH:WE WERE THERE BEFORE. JUST NEEDED TO CHECK.
(Note: Caps Lock is Rosie’s not mine)
More from the same blog entry:
i was in the air when Anna Nicole Smith died
the plane landed
my phone rang
“Anna Nicole Smith died three hours ago,” my publicist said
“Do you have a comment?” she asked.
2 words only
sums it up
to tell the truth
to speak of her suffering
2 notice 2 care
more toxic than crack
and ur done
more tempting than sex
the suffering of someone else
all anyone wants
r people who they know
will keep them from going over the edge
keep me where the light is
E.E. Cummings without the talent?
Laughs are not so hearty when they are always at someone else’s expense. Ching Chong indeed…
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Democrats, Election, News, Politics
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.
But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.
Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.
And they lived happily ever after…
More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).
And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)
When we last left the pair, Amanda was taking baths, shaving her armpits & legs, and trying to delete and modify skanky posts at Pandagon all in an attempt to fit in with l’objet de son désir (pardon my French), presidential wannabe, John Edwards.
Though she blogged like she was from the wrong side of the tracks, the handsome candidate with stylish hair and good teeth attempted to save her from her lowly condition. Surely her past would stay in the past.
But alas, the evil conservative bloggers and that misogynist Catholic church would not allow it to be.
The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.
Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”
Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Why is the Catholic League trying to tarnish the reputation of this genteel young woman?
Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:
“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’
Who, WHO, WHO will save her? Bryan at HotAir has some answers:
Over at MyDD this incident has been taken with the seriousness of a nuclear attack:
I have a pretty vicious rant and an important action alert lined up, but I am waiting to hear from the Edwards camp about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan before doing anything.
Two things spring to mind. First, if you think having both a “vicious rant” AND an “important action alert” teed up constitute words that should strike fear into a presidential candidate, you either have a very high opinion of yourself or a very low opinion of the candidate. Or both. Second, it’s hilarious. It just is, as written, hilarious. Unintentionally, of course.
Oh, and there’s her name. McEwan. Got it.
Over at Crooks & Liars, John Amato is promising that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. I suppose a line has also been crossed, a martini has been shaken and an i has been dotted. A cliche has certainly been loosed upon an unsuspecting world. And someone’s taking himself and this whole incident waaaay too seriously.
Way too seriously, Bryan? I think not. Ace of Spades analyzes the seriousness of this and other equally important “Action Alerts.”
And the sweet Miss Marcotte is in the fight for her very blogging life with the Pandagon Papers.
Is there no voice of reason amongst the evil-doers?
First, I agree with Allah:
I don’t like to see anyone fired, no matter how much they deserve it . . .
I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte. And if he has fired her, I hope he does rehire her.
The other reason I hope Edwards uses Marcotte is that she is an obvious liability to Edwards. Since I don’t like Edwards, why in the world would I want him to lose a liability?
Now, judging from the reaction from the left blogosphere today, lefties generally disagree with me, and think that Marcotte is not a liability. They believe that her rhetoric is not that unusual. A bit profane, perhaps, but not something that should really offend Americans that much.
This view is, of course, utterly insane, as any rational person even vaguely familiar with Marcotte’s writings is well aware. The proof is in the links three paragraphs up, as well as in various places around the blogosphere. It’s not hard to find. If you’re bad at surfing, just go to her site and browse around.
Mr. Edwards – what will you do? The world awaits…until next time on “As the Blog Turns.”
I didn’t realize that this blog was completely glitched out in Internet Explorer until I received an email mentioning something about my content overflowing into my sidbar and my sidebar overflowing into my content. (I know, sounds like a Reese’s commercial.) It worked beautifully in Firefox but for some reason, IE was having fits.
Anyways, I realized very quickly that it was because of the WordPress “widgets” plugin which is used for easily setting up sidebars without coding. I can do the coding, but that widget thing seemed so easy and so tempting.
Hopefully, all is well with the blog again and hey, if you happen to notice it acting squirrely – please let me know.
Ahhhh, the unholy union of John Edwards and the irrepressible Amanda Marcotte. No, it’s not a marriage – just one of the moonbattiest bloggers reporting for duty as John Edwards’ blogmaster.
This is both my first post to the Edwards blog and my announcement that I’m joining the presidential campaign for John Edwards for 2008. I’ll be taking over the job of Blogmaster (mistress?) over the course of the month of February.
The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards?
Yes, indeed, why you? Do you have something on Edwards?
So Mr. Edwards – who is this lovely woman you have managing your blog?
One thing I vow here and now–you motherf*&#$rs who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*&$ without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf*&#$rs. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
Okay, so would it be considered “irony” that Ms. Marcotte is “not going to be ‘punished’ with babies,” while Mr. Edwards has reaped all of his rewards directly from babies? We’ve got Hillary Clinton scootching past Edwards displaying her “maternal tendencies” and Edwards is employing one of the most anti-maternal bloggers on the internet. Only popcorn and Cherry Coke would complete this show.
Speaking of shows, don’t miss Hot Air Theater Presents Amanda Marcotte.
Mary Katherine Ham has more items of interest.
Apparently, boys should be inoculated too. I guess first of all, it would prevent boys/men from getting and passing HPV to girls/women. But that reason alone wasn’t good enough to
force offer the vaccine to males.
It’s possible that Gardasil can prevent anal cancer in men:
The new vaccine against human papillomavirus, which became available last summer, could potentially prevent thousands of cases of cervical cancer. But doctors hope the vaccine will be able to prevent a less well-known, but potentially fatal, disease in gay men, anal cancer. The same strains of HPV cause both cancers.
Although anal cancer can affect anyone, it is most common among men with histories of receptive anal intercourse — an annual rate of about 35 cases per 100,000, and perhaps twice that for those infected with HIV, which weakens the immune system.
The Food and Drug Administration approved the HPV vaccine last year for girls and women from 9 to 26 after studies indicated that it was extremely effective against infection by four of the dozens of strains of HPV, including the ones responsible for most cases of cervical and anal cancer.
“The cervix is similar biologically to the anus, so there’s plenty of hope that it will work there also,” said Dr. Joel Palefsky, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. But he cautioned that its effectiveness against anal cancer remained to be proved.
The anal cancer rate for gay men is similar to cervical cancer rates before the advent of Pap smears, the test that can detect precancerous cell abnormalities. In recent years, some doctors who treat gay men have advised their patients to undergo anal Pap smears as part of routine preventive care.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, with 6.2 million people infected each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though many people clear the virus without having symptoms or knowing that they were infected. And many gay men do not realize they have an elevated risk of anal cancer.
Regulators in Australia and the European Union have approved the vaccine, called Gardasil and made by Merck, for boys ages 9 to 15. They cited data showing that it produced an immune response in boys, though its effectiveness in preventing infection in sexually active men has not been proved.
Oh, and that’s not the reaction from the parents who will be forced to have their daughters injected with the HPV semi-preventative vaccine. Those are actually the reports of reactions of those who have received it.
Vaccine center issues warning
By Gregory Lopes
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 3, 2007
The National Vaccine Information Center yesterday warned state officials to investigate the safety of a breakthrough cancer vaccine as Texas became the first state to make the vaccine mandatory for school-age girls.
Negative side effects of Gardasil, a new Merck vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, are being reported in the District of Columbia and 20 states, including Virginia. The reactions range from loss of consciousness to seizures.
“Young girls are experiencing severe headaches, dizziness, temporary loss of vision and some girls have lost consciousness during what appear to be seizures,” said Vicky Debold, health policy analyst for the National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit watchdog organization that was created in the early 1980s to prevent vaccine injuries.
Following federal approval of the vaccine in July 2006, a storm of legislation was introduced across the nation that would make the vaccine mandatory in schools. The District and Virginia are part of a group of at least 17 states considering such legislation. A measure had been introduced in Maryland, but it was shelved last week over concerns about the mandatory language in the bill.
Yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an order making Texas the first state to require the vaccine. Girls ages 11 and 12 would receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before entering the sixth grade starting in September 2008.
Now, admittedly, I’m not sure if this information is real or hype considering the National Vaccine Information Center promotes the whole autism/childhood vaccination link – which, like global warming, is an unproven theory based on pseudo-science, sketchy data and conspiracy hype. But considering there are other ways to prevent HPV (abstinence), I prefer not to be told my daughters MUST be vaccinated when I haven’t seen the track record of the vaccine. Perhaps I’m still miffed that the “Tell Someone” campaign commercials made my eight-year-0ld daughter believe she could get cancer from catching a cold virus – “A cancer that’s caused by a virus? Why didn’t I know about this?”