CA Bans Tanning Beds for Minors, Allows Vaccination for STD without Parental Consent for Minors
That's right, CA's Governor Jerry Brown passed two bills this week. One outlaws tanning bed use for minors without parental consent. The other allows vaccination with Merck Gardasil for children as young as 12 without parental consent. Who has the bigger lobby? Merck or the National Association of Tanning Beds? And how many girls will still be severely burnt?
Governor Jerry Brown mixed up his priorities.Once the long-term effects of Gardasil plays out we will remember him as
a corrupted politician who taken away our parental rights
and started this slippery road to interfere with our children's health.
Posted by: oneVoice | October 30, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Oh, wait, the $219 million was one quarter. Merck is looking at roughly a billion dollars a year in sales of Gardasil. Yeah, I guess they have the money to buy off every legislator everywhere.
Posted by: Theresa O | October 14, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Here's the link to look up contributions in CA:
Unfortunately, a lot of the contributions from Merck and GSK don't have information on the recipient. However, the total amount from GSK (Cervarix and the Hep B series) is more than $11 million, and the total amount from Merck (Gardasil) is just under $11 million.
2009 sales of Gardasil were $219 million (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/06/news/companies/merck_Gardasill_problems.fortune/index.htm) ... enough money to fund "donations" to the entire California legislature. Will my state be next? I'm sure my local rep would wet her pants over a $2000 gift from Big Pharma.
Posted by: Theresa O | October 14, 2011 at 12:23 AM
I'm just waiting for 12-year-olds to be allowed to "volunteer" for the armed forces...
Posted by: Theresa O | October 12, 2011 at 04:46 PM
What smells, is Browns unbelievable favor for the pharmaceutical industry.
AB499 is a glaring example of this, but this rediculous tanning bed law isn't quite so obvious. Although big pharamas biggest lie ever is that of vaccine safety/efficacy, one of their "other" big lies is the one they've propagated to keep people out out the sun.
You see, the sun is the best available source of Vitamin D, and Vitamin D is a critical component of long term good health. Big pharmas desire to keep you out of the sun should be pretty obvious, and it's exactly why they've been lying to the public for so long about sun exposure. Which is also why sun screens have been designed to make sure you don't get any any of that Vitamin D, on those odd times you decide to just venture out into it.
This stupid tanning bed law is just another rouse, designed for nothing more than to feed the bigger lie about the sun.
Posted by: Barry | October 12, 2011 at 07:17 AM
I agree with Jenny, something smells in Kansas or rather in California. I was wondering what his financial interest would be in the tanning bed thing, since I am very convinced there has to be one. Thanks Jenny for figuring it out.
Posted by: Heidi N | October 11, 2011 at 05:27 PM
I have no doubt the same people vying for minors getting undocumented shots are exactly the same people wanting tanning beds to be against the law for children. Vitamin D3 is an excellent immune system modulator. It helps the immune system do what it's supposed to, at the right time, in the right way. Some tanning beds are made with both UVA as well as UVB bulbs, and so are the next best thing to getting vitamin D from limited safe sun exposure. Vitamin D deficiency has been tied to so many medical conditions now that it's hard to keep count, including multiple sclerosis & 17 different types of cancer, and who on this site doesn't know about the vitamin D deficiency/autism study that's been started? (And by the way, how hard would it be for the "Defeat Autism Now" folks to add D3 to their list of interventions and parental opinions of what works and what doesn't) The FDA is simoultaneously attacking supplements and any company not finacially set enough to go through the FDA process will have their supplement taken off the market if it came on the market after 1994 or have had it's formula changed since 1994. Will that include vitamin D3? Yet at the same time the pharmaceutical companies have about a dozen synthetic vitamin D3 patents pending. So no D3 through tanning beds, and no natural D3 supplements, only pharma-version D3 will be on the market if they get their way. And, icing on the cake, if they hit the D3 market and force a population wide D3 deficiency problem, the control group for autism/D3 deficiency studies will be harder to isolate. To me, similar to taking thimerosol out of some vaccines, but adding it to the flu vaccine and offering it to pregnant mothers and babies under 6 months. Give a little, take a little but in a way that keeps things the same . . .
Posted by: Jenny | October 11, 2011 at 02:30 PM
It shows the power and influence the drug industry has over politicians. I guess the tanning bed people just haven't donated enough to California legislators and to the governor.
Anne Dachel, Media
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | October 11, 2011 at 09:29 AM
Since Sherlock isn't available, let's get Jake to do it.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | October 11, 2011 at 09:24 AM
A month ago, he vetoed requiring kids wear helmets while skiing saying it infringed on parental rights to make that decision...
He had to have received $$ for this. Is someone going to follow the trail??
Posted by: TJ | October 11, 2011 at 07:45 AM