Spero News

The truth about Gardasil, now approved in California
Saturday, September 03, 2011
by Camille Giglio

During the wee hours of evening of August 31,  the California state senators, on a partisan vote, gave final approval to AB 499, a bill mandating Gardasil vaccination for minors by 22 ayes to 17 nays. Only two Democrats, Senator Correa and Senator Rubio, joined all of the Republicans and voted no. The bill now goes to Governor Jerry Brown, a liberal Democrat, who will have until the last day of September to either sign, veto or send it back without his signature - which is the same as approval,  basically.

The most important sentence in this two sentence diabolical bill states that:

A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease

The premise for this bill as promoted by its manufacturer, Merck and Co. is Gardasil’s ability to prevent a sexually active person from suffering the consequences of 4 out of a possible 40 variants of  cancer and including genital warts.  You notice that since the bill states only that “a minor” may consent, the injections will also be provided now for boys as an equity issue. They will receive the Glaxosmithkline shots called Cervarix.

Currently, in California, the age of consent begins at 16 legalizing a minor’s right, sans parental knowledge,  to consent to abortion, contraceptives, venereal disease treatment, mental health services. The mental health part passed only last year. Plus now, it is not only a matter of treatment for a disease contracted through sexual activity. It is the prevention of the disease that is promised to those who become sexually active.

Note that though this bill reduces the age of consent on all matters sexuality for minors from 15 to 12 years of age; it also requires parents and all California citizens to pick up the tab for the “services” provided.

In fact, everybody in the nation will be contributing through their taxes because, in California these services are paid 50% by federal dollars and 50% by state (except for abortions which are paid with California state tax dollars).  Payment may come through any of three programs: MediCal, California’s version of federal Medicaid; The Healthy Families Program (also a MediCal program); or the California Minor Consent account.

There are an estimated 900,000+ minors in California ages 12-17.  California will be paying $10 per head to every qualified person who injects your child with Gardasil.  Federal dollars will pay for the purchase of Gardasil, which is a series of 3 injections over 6 months, at an estimated cost of from $350 to $500 per recipient.

Payment for this part comes from the federal Vaccines for Children program, which is administered by the federal Centers for Disease Control.

The bill was endorsed by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, plus a vast array of their tax supported minions including the LGBT Center, Kaiser Hospitals and several governmental health care provider groups. They will all profit at the taxpayers expense by receiving tax dollars to provide these services.

This bill also removes any thought of an opt-out action for parents to reject the services on behalf of their children. Those opt-out papers at school or at the doctor’s office, that you signed two years ago will now be null and void.  Kaiser hospitals have been giving these shots to minors without benefit of legal protection and without parental awareness for at least two years. If you signed a form allowing Kaiser to give your minor daughter all the listed shots including something referred to as HPV, you approved Gardasil as far as they are concerned.

The only thing this bill “allows” parents to do is pay for the medical care and mental rehabilitation services when your son or daughter becomes debilitated by the drug Gardasil.  The United States Supreme Court, this last March, in Bruesewitz v Wyeth, handed down a decision that exempts pharmaceutical companies from being held responsible for claims of damage as a result of vaccinations. According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the decision, this came about  “to protect the integrity of vaccines. ” This covers Gardasil as well.

So, for Merck and Co. or the legislators to claim, glibly that there are no injuries from Gardasil is to beg the question, when it is obvious that there are serious side effects. The pharmaceutical companies - often referred to as Big Pharma - are protected from having to admit to or pay for harm resulting from their product.

Here is a quote from a publication called Heartland.time “Brueusewitz v. Wyeth: What the Supreme Court Decision Means for Vaccines:”  http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/#ixzz1WjlKGrln

“Rather, the Court said, vaccine makers cannot be held liable for negative side effects that parents believe are the result of their products. To be compensated, parents must go before special no-fault tribunals established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Congress created these "Vaccine Courts" with the participation of pharmaceutical companies as a sort of "societal bargain" — as Justice Antonin Scalia noted in the majority decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth — to ensure the future of vaccine availability in the U.S. At the time of the Act, hundreds of injury lawsuits were piling up against vaccine manufacturers, causing them to abandon manufacture of major vaccines and threatening immunizations for the entire country.” (More on Time.com: Q&A: The Dangers of the Anti-Vaccine Movement).

The terms? Injured parties may file for compensation without having to prove cause — they simply have to demonstrate that the injury occurred immediately after vaccination. Further, the claimed injury does not have to be among the listed contraindications on the vaccine package, but must be included in a list of side effects called a Vaccine Table, kept by the Vaccine Court. In exchange, pharmaceutical companies cannot be held liable in civil court for adverse effects, and there is a cap on how much claimants may be awarded. (The fees come from taxes on immunizations.) 

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/#ixzz1WjlKGrln

Here is the excerpt from the official final Senate analysis of this bill which also contains a history of related legislation, written by a member of the Democrat caucus legislative analysis committee:

 “DIGEST: This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

    ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years of age or older who might have come into contact with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of that disease if the disease or condition is one that is required by law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a sexually transmitted disease as determined by the Director of the Department of Health Services. (Family Code Section 6926 (a))

    Existing law provides that the parents of a minor who has consented to medical treatment for a communicable or sexually transmitted disease are not liable for payment for that care. (Family Code Section 6926 (b))

    Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical care related to the prevention or treatment of pregnancy. (Family Code Section 6925 (a))

    Existing law provides that a minor's consent under minor consent statutes cannot be subject to disaffirmance because of minority. (Family Code Section 6921)

    Existing law provides that a minor who is 12 years old or older who is alleged to have been raped may consent to diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6927)

    Existing law allows a minor alleged to have been sexually assaulted to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis and treatment of that condition. (Family Code Section 6928 (b))

    Existing law allows a minor to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of a drug or alcohol-related problem. (Family Code Section 6929 (b))

    Existing law provides that a minor may consent to medical or dental care if that minor is over the age of 15, living separate and apart from his or her parents whether with or without his/her parents' consent, and managing his or her own financial affairs. (Family Code Section 6922 (c))

This bill authorizes a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.  

This fight isn’t over.  Stay tuned for news following a Monday meeting of interested organizations.

For complete information on the damages to our youth already occuring from this drug please visit the following websites:  www.NVIC.org (National Vaccines Information Center), http://sanevax.org, and www.truthaboutgardasil.org.

I admit to having a difficult time thinking about all the California children who will in near future begin to suffer from the badly mistaken “good” intentions of the legislators who think they know better than parents, what is good for a child. I know that I, for one, will never be able to accept any Merck drug product or over-the-counter product which can be determined by going to their website.


Camille Giglio resides in California and is a member of the Catholic Media Coalition.

Copyright © 2019 Spero