Gardasil now recommended in Canada to prevent Cervical Cancer in Gay Males… wait what??
By: James Burge
February 2nd, 2012
Okay so I just read an article that said that Gardisil has now been approved for boys aged 9 – 26 inCanada. And I felt it important to inform my roommate who has a 6-year-old boy, to refuse such a vaccination (assuming of course they even let her know, there are many stories where they are forcibly vaccinating children without informing their parents), due to the fact that all the anecdotal stories I’ve heard talk about the side-effects. Here are just a few:
“seizures, strokes, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, headaches, stomach pains, vomiting, muscle pain and weakness, joint pain, auto-immune problems, chest pains, hair loss, appetite loss, personality changes, insomnia, hand/leg tremors, arm/leg weakness, shortness of breath, heart problems, paralysis, itching, rashes, swelling, aching muscles, pelvic pain, nerve pain, menstrual cycle changes, fainting, swollen lymph nodes, night sweats, nausea, temporary vision/hearing loss just to name some of them!”
http://truthaboutgardasil.org/
There have been over 100 deaths related to Gardisil and over 25,000 serious complications like those listed above. I know I heard one story about a girl who developed severe narcolepsy in the days after her vaccination. She was a straight A student, now she is only awake a little over an hour a day and requires 24 hour care. (http://www.patientsville.com/vaccines/hpv4/narcolepsy-hpv-gardasil-2010.htm)
So as I was doing a bit of research, as I tend to do when I see stories like this and I came across the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Website on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevention and HPV Vaccines: Questions and Answers page and was greeted with information that blows this whole charade out of the water in my opinion. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/hpv-vph/hpv-vph-vaccine-eng.php#a3)
When I click on the question, “Who should get the vaccine?” after trying to sell me on the same old HPV cervical cancer BS I found this:
“Gardasil® is also recommended in males between 9 and 26 years of age, and in men ? 9 years of age who have sex with men.”
So let me get this straight (pun anyone?), you are trying to sell the story that boys need to be vaccinated against HPV because they might pass it on to girls, as it has allegedly been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer, but then you say gay males would benefit?? I guess one thing we may need to point out to the drug companies, is that one requires a cervix to get cervical cancer. So unless gay men everywhere have started spontaneously sprouting a cervix (if so lets patent it and get transsexuals in on this). Vaccinating a man who will likely never sleep with a woman seems at best to be a waste of taxpayer money (because Health Canada will offer to pay, for the good of the people I’m sure) and at worst, clarification that the true intent of these vaccines is to pump this shit into anyone stupid enough (or young enough not to have a choice) to sit through the process. What ever happened to the idea of informed consent?? One may wrongly conclude that requires people to be adequately informed.
Eugenics may be on its way back…
By: James Burge
January 20th, 2012
This is a crazy story, but unfortunately I am not surprised by the ‘system’’s inhumanity and the fact that bureaucrats tend to wash their hands of these sorts of practices.
I read a story yesterday and couldn’t get it out of my head because it seems to me to be a hint at how far our society has come since I was a kid, and not in a good way. I admit, chances are I had a naively romantic view of society but when I was younger it seemed that people in power making decisions tended to ask themselves “Is this the right thing to do?” Some call this morality, and of course Catholics and Christians tend to feel they have dibs on morality. Yet you see people that are devout or in some cases evangelical yet don’t seem to have the values I thought were taught by such religions, such as morality and acceptance. It amazes me when people say, you can’t be a moral person if you aren’t religious, yet you find those that are extremely religious who don’t seem to have a moral bone in their body, but I digress.
The story I am talking about is one of the first instances I have heard of Death panels in the US. According to Wikipedia, this was ‘proven’ a myth after Sarah Palin mentioned it in a 2009 debate referring to her daughter with Downs Syndrome possibly being denied healthcare. However, as little as I like this woman as a world leader, she was right. Especially with the newly passed ObamaCare bill which forces citizens to buy private health insurance, or face consequences. But I guess the one thing they don’t mention is that even if you do buy insurance as your government now requires, you may require medical attention that some panel decides is either too expensive, or wont have an effect on your quality of life so the procedure is denied.
This story is about a 3 year old girl named Amelia. She was denied a kidney transplant (at 3?? It’s not like she has her whole life ahead of her or anything) because she is considered to be “mentally retarded”. Her doctor used the fact that he felt that Amelia wouldn’t have a good enough “quality of life” after surgery to justify the cost of the procedure in order to deny it.
There are so many things wrong with this. First being that a Dr. who is supposed to take an oath to practice medicine ethically feels it best to just let this girl slowly die of renal failure.
The second issue comes from the fact that Medicare is slowly putting American Doctors out of work. What happens is that since most Dr’s do whatever necessary to help patients, but Medicare doesn’t tend to fully cover costs, the doctors are taking losses on treating patients, which is not a good business model. Therefore doctors are forced to choose between Medicare patients, or going out of business. If you think ObamaCare will be different, you haven’t been paying attention, if there is one thing governments know how to do it’s mismanage federal programs until they break the system. (Social security anyone??)
So what may be happening is that the doctor can’t afford to loose money on the kidney transplant so he tried to justify no doing the surgery by calling the girl retarded (sorry) so that he can sleep at night.
There is also rumour I heard from a Neurosurgeon the other day which has not yet been made public that ObamaCare will introduce panels of bureaucrats not doctors, to decide what procedures are justified for patients because a federal system like this can’t provide everything for everyone. Think about that for a moment, you aren’t feeling well, you go to a doctor, he finds out you require an expensive procedure which he has to get approved before he can do it. Now your health is in the hands of bureaucrats who want nothing more than to reduce the costs to healthcare.
Instead of putting a limit on profits from essential medications cutting into the big drug companies profits (which considering how much they spend on lobbying wont happen, maybe if Dr. Paul becomes president but I doubt that will be allowed to happen either) or trying to cut costs in other more innovative ways, it is cheaper (and easier) to just let people die. And they wonder why they have such a bad healthcare system (I just found something where they are 37th worldwide, which for a country like the US is not only unacceptable, its borderline criminal IMO, although Canada is 30th)
What we are seeing here is called Eugenics. It is an old philosophy that advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population. It was started (in California I believe) in the early 1900s by (to name a few) Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son), Winston Churchill, and Alexander Graham Bell. The problem is that the views of Eugenics seems to have been used to justify atrocities ever since. Hitler and his ideas of the purification of the Arian Race he borrowed directly from eugenics. One of the first challenges to eugenics was a study which found a family of fruit flies, all with red eyes for many generations can still have offspring with white eyes, considered a mild genetic mutation that occurs outside of the inherited traits of the parents. What this showed was that even the most “pure” of parents can still have offspring with traits seen as detrimental, weather something like a predisposition to a heart condition, or even something like reduced mental capacity. Meaning the idea that you can bread the negative traits out of humans is a bit of a fallacy. Especially in an age where Mothers are bombarded with chemicals which studies have found actually concentrates in breast milk.
On an interesting side note, since I am an Albertan I found this interesting. In 1928 Alberta enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act focusing the movement of eugenics on the sterilization of the mentally deficient as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. Individuals were assessed using IQ tests which of course caused a big problem for new immigrants arriving in Canada. So many of those sterilized by the government were immigrants unfairly categorized as having impaired intellectual functions. BC apparently enacted its own version of the law in 1933 around the start of the great depression.
I think it is worth mentioning that the great depression played a big role in the acceptance of eugenics in Canada as it was widely seen as a way of relieving society of the financial burdens imposed by defective individuals. These laws were finally repealed in 1972, amazing right. But since some are predicting another depression, the question of weather eugenics will see another upswing in popularity remains to be seen.
This is kind of pathertic…
By: James Burge
November 3rd, 2011
It wont let me embed the video so click here. Watch as the reporter acts like, wait for it, a reporter!!! But she is very good at avoiding the bigger issue.
And of course, as Alicia Points out, “the harper government” has made the same decision, likely for the same reasons.
Can you imagine if the USA negotiated with King George I regarding their own independence. On a somewhat related note, look for Israel to invade Iran before the US withdraw from Iraq January 1st, as they cannot finish a scermish with Iran but they sure as hell can start one.
Arab Spring Maufactured by Western Interests…
By: James Burge
November 2nd, 2011
More Evidence that the West is the Aggressor in Libya…
By: James Burge
September 7th, 2011
Wow, Some staggering Libya statistics…
By: James Burge
September 6th, 2011
Although, I think anyone with a brain knew the humanitarian aid brought to Libya with bombs didn’t quite add up.
Can there be good Government?
By: James Burge
May 6th, 2010
The following rant is in response to an article, entitled “Can there be good Government?” (I was gonna post it in the comments but decided it was a bit of an off topic rant better suited for my blog)
So can there be good Government?
I get the sense that local governments, on the order of state or even municipal governments can be good, as long as they stick to issues they have the ability to actually control and not try to throw their weight around. It has only been in the last few decades that governments have tried to take on other issues that it need not be involved. If it doesn’t involve crossing the federal border (ie. Immigration, trade, etc.) it should be of little business to a federal government. Most issues that affect us, like healthcare, education, local infrastructure, etc, are in essence state/provincial, even municipal issues and should be regulated as such. Even the legal system itself is built around this idea, in that the federal government makes the laws, and local law enforcement chooses how best to enforce those laws, and in some cases, as we see with drug laws in some areas, choose not to enforce certain laws, usually due to the cost of enforcement. The idea that a federal government has a say in who you are allowed to marry, what medical procedures (ie. abortion) should be available to citizens, or how we choose to pay for medical care (ie Obamacare), is laughable and oppressive. They are forcing the entire country to follow laws and regulations that likely do nothing to protect the citizen/consumer, and do everything for the big businesses that can afford to lobby for/against these laws. And if there is one thing government regulatory bodies such as the CDC, FDA, WHO, WTO, and CPS to name a few, have done well is to destroy any confidence citizens may have in these bodies. I mean just because there isn’t an FDA recall on that meat you are eating does not mean that it is safe, just that it hasn’t been found to cause a problem yet, or that the manufacturer sees punitive damages from a lawsuit as cheaper than the cost of a recall, not the fact their product can harm the people who buy it. And then you have something like the WHO changing its definition of a pandemic, not based on any science, but seemingly for the sole purpose of causing panic, so governments buy millions of (virtually untested) vaccines that most of its citizens wont risk getting. And, how does it look when Child protective services gives it’s employees bonuses for children it forces out of their rightful home into that of a foster family. (On an aside the woman speaking in the afore-lined video, Senator Nancy Schaefer, was ‘suicided’, with her husband likely for bringing these issues to light). I have also always found it strange the level of federal government involvement in dictating school curriculum. It is always scary when you realize how much brainwashing and indoctrination occurs with most government controlled education. The idea that government bodies are in place to protect use is a view that we are given during public-education/indoctrination. The idea that our government is ‘for the people’ and that foreign governments are dangerous are unproven and likely untrue. It seems that most Americans are at greater risk of being tortured, imprisoned or murdered by their own government than the government of a foreign country. This is best outlined by the current tea-party movement, in a time when support for the tea-parties and the libertarian ideals the movement is based, are growing, a campaign to paint tea-partiers at best as racist, and at worst as terrorists (whatever that word even means anymore), is in full force in the mainstream media. Luckily, most people have given up listening to the drivel served up by these private companies each with their own agenda that is woven into every story they produce. Most people are aware that the US government, and more specifically it’s foreign policy, which allows for the killing and imprisonment of innocent civilians worldwide, are the real terrorists. But only time will tell how history treats this dark moment for the ‘land of the free,’ and weather or not societies continue to allow their ever growing governments to engage in behaviour befitting a fascist, tyrannical regime. It may already be too late.
Yet another example of fading Canadian Sovereignty
By: James Burge
March 5th, 2010
An article appeared in the Montreal gazette yesterday mentioning that starting December 2010, passengers on flights from Canada that fly over US airspace, never actually landing on US soil, will only be allowed to fly once US Homeland inSecurity says they aren’t a terrorist.
Canadian airlines already check their flight manifests against the U.S. no-fly list, which is compiled by the FBI and distributed to airlines around the world. It contains the names of about 16,000 people the U.S. government says are suspected of terrorism. The names and why they are on the list are not disclosed for reasons of “national security.”
The claim is made that:
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration says Secure Flight will reduce the number of false positives — people with the same name as someone on the no-fly list — who now are stopped at airports.
Unfortunately this is far from surprising and seems to be business as usual. It is interesting that when we speak of ‘co-operation’ between Canada and the US it seems to be more of the US telling Canada what is and isn’t OK, further destroying Canadian sovereignty and blurring the line between Canada and the US, likely in preparation for the proposed North American Union. It seems it is now unacceptable for Canadian authorities to just check against no-fly lists, likely because of the US obsession with tracking people. It seems they really want to know when and where Canadians are traveling abroad.
This is a great example of guilty until proven innocent, something that is happening with increasing regularity these days (like being asked to ID yourself when you’ve done nothing to require identification). Since there is little transparency in the case of no-fly lists, the US government can put you on a no-fly list claiming that you are a risk to the public for whatever reason it deems necessary without providing evidence and with little or no opportunity for the accused to appeal such decisions. I think this is the beginning of a push by the US to create an international body that could be used to screen passengers with the US deciding who can and cannot travel the globe. {Look for a false flag in the not to distant future where a foreign country is at fault for their screening of ‘terrorists’ starting the call for US Transportation Safety agents be used to oversee screening in other countries. This would sure make it easier not only for the US to punish anti-government dissent but also to make sure the Mossad agents make it through security all in one shot (which would be nice since they keep pissing other governments off by using their fake passports).}
Get used to this people, it is only the beginning. They are starting to talk about naked body scanners at bus stations and in the street. All of this under the guise of increased security at the cost of privacy and, as some people have pointed out, seems to be to further dehumanize populations making them more open to tyranny. I remember hearing a quote once that said something to the effect that Tyranny, when done correctly will be welcomed by the public who will be calling for increased security at all costs (I wish I could find the quote). This almost exactly describes what we are seeing the US as the government continues to scare the public into submission through false flag attacks which are blamed on anti-government groups in order to justify the use of force against dissent under the guise that such people are violent, even though most modern protests are non-violent by design (as they are usually anti-war).
Some good news…
By: James Burge
February 25th, 2009
I was just emailed this article and thought it was worth the read, so I’m gonna post it.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1–compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1.
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009
The legendary editor of The New Republic, Michael Kinsley, once held a “Boring Headline Contest” and decided that the winner was “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.” Twenty-two years later, the magazine was rescued from its economic troubles by a Canadian media company, which should have taught us Americans to be a bit more humble. Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada’s virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it’s Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada’s banking system the healthiest in the world. America’s ranked 40th, Britain’s 44th.
Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn’t grown in size; the others have all shrunk.
So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada’s more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.
Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn’t deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are “non-recourse,” which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it’s mostly the bank’s problem. In Canada, it’s yours. Ah, but you’ve heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It’s 68.4 percent.
Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America’s by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; “healthy life expectancy” is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America’s largest car-producing region.
I could go on. The U.S. currently has a brain-dead immigration system. We issue a small number of work visas and green cards, turning away from our shores thousands of talented students who want to stay and work here. Canada, by contrast, has no limit on the number of skilled migrants who can move to the country. They can apply on their own for a Canadian Skilled Worker Visa, which allows them to become perfectly legal “permanent residents” in Canada—no need for a sponsoring employer, or even a job. Visas are awarded based on education level, work experience, age and language abilities. If a prospective immigrant earns 67 points out of 100 total (holding a Ph.D. is worth 25 points, for instance), he or she can become a full-time, legal resident of Canada.
Companies are noticing. In 2007 Microsoft, frustrated by its inability to hire foreign graduate students in the United States, decided to open a research center in Vancouver. The company’s announcement noted that it would staff the center with “highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S.” So the brightest Chinese and Indian software engineers are attracted to the United States, trained by American universities, then thrown out of the country and picked up by Canada—where most of them will work, innovate and pay taxes for the rest of their lives.
If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, in the councils of the financial world, Canada is pushing for new rules for financial institutions that would reflect its approach. This strikes me as, well, a worthwhile Canadian initiative.
Laughably Useless
By: James Burge
December 18th, 2008
In a move similar to recent Melamine contamination news, the US FDA has decided that “mercury in fish,[…] no longer poses any health threat to children, pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants.” (as if toxins somehow degrade with time…as opposed to accumulate in the food chain)
Last week, the FDA declared trace levels of melamine to be safe in infant formula. A few weeks earlier, it said the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A was safe for infants to drink. Now it says children can eat mercury, too. Is there any toxic substance in the food that the FDA thinks might be dangerous? (Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite and now mercury…)
Source: FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!
In a move that can only be seen as highly political the USA FDA has caved in to pressure regarding Mercury in Dental Amalgam and Thimerosal in vaccines and flu shots and decided that all mercury is safe, even for pregnant women and infants. This is in direct opposition to YEARS of science that labels mercury as one of the most neurotoxic substances known to man.
A recent University of Calgary study found that mercury causes significant neurodegredation in snails. However, even Health Canada released a statement saying these findings don’t provide evidence of any risk. Most claim that mercury levels from dental amalgam aren’t significant enough, or as some claim, non-existent, so no health effects are expected.
It just seems to me that, as with most industry watch dogs, that unless a significant risk exists its business as usual. Which means that the claim mercury no longer poses ANY health effects is false it just isn’t significant enough for them to care. If you do by chance suffer from mercury poisoning (or acute mercury toxicity) you likely wont be able to trace it back to dental fillings, flu shots/vaccines, or fish consumption. Also, when you consider how many people have mercury in their mouth due to dental fillings, if it was deemed unsafe, where would the dental industry begin in attempting to rectify the situation?
When agencies such as Health Canada and the FDA play these sorts of games it does nothing more than reduce people’s trust thereby rendering these agencies useless. What good is a health agency that is more worried about multinational cooperation’s bottom line than the people they are supposed to be protecting? And at what levels can a known toxin be considered safe? Oh wait I forgot, Mercury isn’t toxic, not anymore, what a relief?
But if you don’t believe me, below is the video from the University of Calgary presenting the results of their study, decide for your self.
How Mercury Produces Brain Damage – Click here for funny video clips
