**ACTION ALERT** A Disaster In The Making - CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS THIS IS URGENT

[Guest guest]

According to Rick Rollens (an amazing father of an ASD

son in the Sacramento

area, advocate, past political representative, and a founding father of MIND

Institute) The proposed legislation is the " MOST DANGEROUS BILL " he

has EVER

seen in 30+ years.

The made me perk up and read this bill.

The issues at hand:

1) It was approved by the Senate education committee

2) The bill is on its way to the Senate Health committee on July 11th

3) If this bill passes - basically anyone who lobbies for the currently

under developed 300 vaccines will have easy passage to make it a MANDATORY

addition to the California

vaccination schedule

4) If it passes in California

it will SURELY Pass in other states - we

are the leading standard don't you know?

How could this be? Please read. Please please read. The current 30+ vaccine

load to children in California

today are NOTHING to what could happen in the

very near future. If you are not excited about this - follow the directions

below to contact the SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE MEMBERS & LET THEM KNOW YOUR

CONCERNS!

I am scared to death about this.

- Jeffs mom

---------------------

DETAILS:

AB 16 () was approved last week by the Senate Education Committee.

This bill would remove all public input and legislative review whenever a

new childhood vaccine is added to the mandatory immunization schedule in

California,

and instead would automatically add every new vaccine that is

approved by ACIP (the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) to

the list of mandatory childhood vaccines.

If this bill passes here in California

you can expect the bill's sponsor

Merck to take their success to every other state and march through those

states like Grant went through the South. Within a very few short years, the

30 doses of vaccines that California's

children receive today will quickly

double, then triple, with no end in sight. There are currently 300 new

vaccines in development with hundreds more in the queue. There is no more a

serious threat to the children of today and future generations of children

yet to be born as well as those who believe that their child is a victim of

vaccine induced autism then the enactment of AB 16.

Our last chance before the California Legislature is to convince the Senate

Health Committee next Wednesday, July 11 at 1:30pm in Room 4203 State

Capitol of the disastrous consequences of passing this special interest

piece of legislation. It will be difficult since the Health Committee has

already approved two other awful companion bills being pushed by big pharma

and their lackeys in public health that tighten the noose around the health

of our children. See below:

Click

<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_533_cfa_20070702_

100637_asm_comm.html> here: SB 533 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

Click

<http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0651-0700/sb_676_cfa_20070702_

100644_asm_comm.html> here: SB 676 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

Below is a list and link for the Senate Health Committee members. I implore

you to write, e-mail, fax, or phone these members and urge them in the

strongest terms to vote NO on AB 16. Also below are some newspaper articles

and my testimony on AB 16. rick

Senator Sheila <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_23/_home>

Kuehl (Chair)

Senator <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_04/_home>

Aanestad (Vice Chair)

Senator Elaine <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_13/_home>

Alquist

Senator Gilbert <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_22/_home>

Cedillo

Senator Dave <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_01/_home>

Senator Abel <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_15/_home>

Maldonado

Senator Gloria <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_32/_home>

Negrete McLeod

Senator Mark <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_26/_home>

Ridley-

Senator Darrell <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_06/_home>

Steinberg

Senator Mark <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_38/_home>

Wyland

Senator Leland <http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/district/sd_08/_home>

Yee

Mr. Chairman and Members:

My name is Rick Rollens. This is my 33 year of being in and around the

Capitol. For 24 years I served in the State Senate in numerous positions

including a chief of staff to a Senator, chief consultant to the Senate

Rules Committee, creator and director of the Office of Senate Floor

Analyses, and finally as Secretary of the Senate. In 1996 I resigned my post

ion as Secretary of the Senate in order to dedicate my life to finding

effective treatments and a cure for my beloved son who suffers from

vaccine induced regressive autism.

Since leaving the Senate, I have been extremely active in the autism world.

Iam a co-founder of FEAT...Families for Early Autism Treatment, a co-founder

of the UC M.I.N.D. Institute, a Speaker's appointee to the

Legislative Blue Ribbon Commission on Autism, Superintendent O'Connell's

appointee to his Autism Advisory Committee, I have served as a national

board member of ASA, the NIH Autism Advisory Committee, and currently serve

on numerous autism organizations throughout California, the nation, and the

world. My family and I have been featured in dozens of local, state,

national and international media stories about autism and the autism

epidemic, the crown jewel of them all is this (SHOW NEWSWEEK) cover story in

Newsweek magazine that featured my son on the cover and a feature on

's story of his decent into autism at 6 months old after receiving

numerous shots at his well baby check up and immediately suffering a classic

adverse vaccine reaction leading to his acquired full syndrome autism. That

day changed his life and the lives of ALL who know and love him. is

not alone.

Today, California

is adding 10 new children a day, seven days a week, like

to our DD system. In 1980 when California

first enacted it's

mandatory immunization law, autism accounted for 3% of all the intakes into

our DD system. Today, autism only the fastest growing condition entering the

system but now accounts for 64% of all the new intakes. In 1980 the

incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000, today it is 1-150, and in some areas

high as 1-84 children. Twenty years ago there were 2700 persons with autism

in our system, today there are 34,000. In the past 9 months alone, we added

more children with autism to our system then we did over the 16 YEAR period

from 1971-1987! 886 new children in the past 3 months alone.

The most telling fact is that over 91%, or 9 out of 10 persons currently in

our system were born after 1980, the year that California's mandatory

immunization law was enacted. There is a tsunami of young children aged 3 to

17 years old accounting for nearly 80% of the autism population moving

through the system.

Iam here today to vehemently oppose AB 16. AB 16 represents an outrageous

and arrogant attempt by the makers of the HPV vaccine and Vioxx, as well as

those who front for them in the public health community, to strip away from

the Legislature and the Governor the responsibility that has been in statute

for nearly 30 years to review and approve or reject the addition of new

vaccines to the mandatory childhood immunization schedule; and instead, turn

over that responsibility to one and a group of their own, a non-accountable

bureaucrat, the state Director of Public Health and a Committee 3,000 miles

away of vaccine promoters who have yet to reject an application for adding a

new vaccine to the schedule, and numerous members of which are personally

and professionally conflicted for accepting research and professional

funding and career opportunities from the same vaccine manufactures that are

suppose to be regulating. Their behavior and actions have become subject to

Congressional investigation and review.

AB 16 as introduced would have added Merck's HPV vaccine to the mandatory

schedule. After extensive public hearing and debate in the Assembly Health

Committee, it was clear that there was little support to approve the bill

and the author refused to even let the bill come up for a vote. This was the

second new vaccine that has been rejected by the Legislature in the past

five years. I guess enough was enough in the minds of the vaccine

manufacturers and their followers. The bill was subsequently gutted and

amended the bill to include the provisions before you today.

Keep in mind, that today in California

children receive up to 30 doses of

vaccines by the age of 6 years old, most of which are administered starting

moments after birth through the first two years of life when healthy brain

development is most important. If the provisions of AB 16 had been in effect

during this current decade, the number of doses of vaccines our children

would have been subjected to would have increased to 40 doses. Throughout

the country,including right here at the M.I.N.D. Institute,dozens of

research projects are currently underway examining the connection between

the immune system, vaccines, and autism.

And lastly, be aware that there are over 300 new vaccines currently in

development and in the pipeline, including vaccines for such things as

nicotine addiction, diarrhea, mononucleosis, cocaine, mehamphetamine, and

stomach ulcers. These vaccines, as well as vaccines currently in use today

contain such potent toxic and poisonous agents as mercury, aluminum,

formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, MSG, live viruses, and killed bacteria.

Mr. Chairman and Members, the system we have in place today has served us

well for nearly three decades. You and your constituents and future members

of the legislature and their constituents have a real say in the very

serious issue of what new vaccines are added to MANDATORY childhood

immunization schedule. There is sunshine in the current process, this bill

takes away the sunshine away and replaces it with a wink and a nod by

unaccountable bureaucrats and members of a Committee that have not seen a

vaccine they can say no to.

On behalf of the children and their families of today, and the children yet

to be born, please reject this horrific proposal. Keep this process in the

hands of the people's representatives, do not hand over the future of our

children's very health to those who would profit both personally and

professionally by approving this bill. Please vote no. Thank you.

Bill shifting decisions on vaccines stirs debate

Assembly proposal to change responsibility for inoculation decisions angers

many parents of autistic children

By

<mailto:skleffmancctimes?subject=ContraCostaTimes.com:%20Bill%20shiftin

g%20decisions%20on%20vaccines%20stirs%20debate> Sandy

Kleffman

CONTRA

<mailto:skleffmancctimes?subject=ContraCostaTimes.com:%20Bill%20shiftin

g%20decisions%20on%20vaccines%20stirs%20debate> COSTA TIMES

A bill that would take decisions on mandatory childhood vaccines away from

the governor and Legislature is drawing heated debate.

Assembly Bill 16 would hand such decisions to a federal advisory committee

and the state public health officer.

The author of the bill, Assemblyman , D-West Covina, argues

this would lead to a more science-driven, less-politicized process. He has

picked up support from such groups as the California Medical Association,

Kaiser Permanente and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

But the proposal has angered many parents of autistic children, who blame

vaccines for their children's disorders. They argue the changes would ensure

such decisions are made by a distant committee and a nonelected official,

and thus eliminate the opportunity for public hearings and input.

" This is a flat-out attempt to grab the power of approval away from the

public and parents, " said Rick Rollens, the father of an autistic boy and

a

co-founder of the M.I.N.D. Institute at UC . M.I.N.D. stands for

Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders. " It's going to open

the door for an onslaught of dozens of new vaccines being mandated on our

kids, " Rollens said.

AB16 originally would have required girls as young as 11 to be vaccinated

against human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause

cervical cancer.

But that drew vigorous opposition from conservatives, who argued that the

vaccine, Gardasil, has not been adequately tested and should not be required

for young girls.

" These are health decisions that should be left up to a parent, " said

England,

executive director of Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family

public policy organization.

Others disagree. Considering how many women are infected with HPV at some

point in their lives, Planned Parenthood supported both the original and

current versions of the bill, said Lee, spokesman for the Shasta

Diablo chapter.

" It's a public health issue, " he said.

AB16 has passed the Assembly and will be heard Wednesday morning in the

Senate Education Committee.

It would impose a five-year waiting period from the time the federal

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a vaccine be added

to the mandatory schedule and the time it is required in California.

At that point, the state public health officer would make the decision after

receiving advice from the California Conference of Local Health Officers.

The public health officer could delay action for a year beyond the five-year

waiting period if he or she determines there is a shortage of the vaccine,

that it is not adequately covered by insurance, or that a delay is necessary

to protect public health.

noted in an interview Monday that the Legislature will not abandon

its power to readdress the issue of a mandatory immunization.

Children would have to be immunized to attend public schools, unless a

parent signed a letter stating immunizations are contrary to their beliefs.

While this is the current policy, many parents are unaware of such opt-out

options, said. His bill would increase notification for parents.

Because the federal advisory committee in 2006 recommended the HPV vaccine

be mandatory for females age 11 to 26, it would most likely be required in

California in

2011 if 's bill passes.

The California Medical Association backs the bill in the belief that it

would enable the state to be more nimble in responding to federal

recommendations. As it is now, each change requires a vote by the

Legislature.

Rollens and other parents of autistic children counter that the Advisory

Committee on Immunization Practices is rife with conflicts of interest

because some of its members have links to drug manufacturers as a result of

funding for research projects.

More than 300 new vaccines are in development, Rollens notes, including

shots for such non-life-threatening conditions as nicotine addiction,

diarrhea, stomach ulcers and mononucleosis.

He noted that the committee rarely says no to a new vaccine.

Reach Sandy Kleffman at 925-943-8249 or skleffmancctimes.

State vaccination rule sought

Bills seek to give public health officials, not lawmakers or parents, power

to call the shots.

By Dorsey Griffith - Bee Medical Writer

A proposal to allow state public health officials to mandate new vaccines

for children without legislative tinkering is picking up steam among

California

lawmakers.

Assembly Bill 16, the bill that originally would have required the cervical

cancer vaccine for girls, now addresses how vaccines are included on the

state's list of required childhood immunizations, authorizing the state

public health officer to make the final call. The bill is being touted by

supporters as an effort to strip politics from a process that has long been

subject to legislative debate.

" The way we determine what immunizations we will require of children is a

mess, " said Stark, a lobbyist for the California Medical

Association.

" We want the decisions to be made based on science and what's best for the

public health. "

Opponents counter that the bill's new version would rubber-stamp potentially

controversial immunizations such as the vaccine against the cancer-causing

human papillomavirus.

" We opposed the original bill because of the mandate, " said

England,

executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a conservative

parental rights advocacy organization. " This is even worse, because it

turns

the power over to public health officials with no recourse for the people to

be heard. "

AB 16, by Ed , D-West Covina, is one of three immunization bills

currently under consideration. SB 676 by Mark Ridley-, D-Los Angeles,

would mandate whooping cough booster shots, and SB 533 by Leland Yee, D-San

Francisco, would require pneumococcus vaccine for children entering

preschool.

Although their details differ, all three bills also would authorize the

state public health officer to make vaccine requirement decisions.

Collaboration efforts to create a single, unified measure are under way. AB

16 passed out of the Senate Education Committee last week and will be heard

July 11 by the Senate Health Committee.

The Legislature last year voted to create a new Department of Public Health,

which debuted Sunday.

Dr. Mark Horton, the state's public health officer who will run the new

department, said Friday that while he has not taken an official position, he

agrees the proposal makes sense.

" Whatever can make the process easier would be a good idea, " he said.

Horton

noted that similar legislation passed last year gave health officials

authority to require doctors to report certain diseases to the state, also

bypassing the legislative process.

AB 16, which has the support of the California Medical Association, has

dropped any reference to mandating Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, for

middle-school girls. The bill met with strong resistance from legislators

before it was withdrawn in March.

Critics cited the vaccine's relative newness to the market, its $360 cost

and what some conservatives argued was its potential to encourage premarital

sex.

" The pressure caused us to take a step back and look at how we do these as

a

whole, " explained Tim Valderamma, 's legislative director.

The new version of the bill relies on recommendations from the federal

Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) and implementation by

the state public health officer.

The bill makes any vaccinations recommended by the ACIP mandatory in

California

after a five-year waiting period, as long as their costs are

covered and the state public health officer deems them safe and effective.

The bill also maintains parents' rights to opt out of having their child

vaccinated.

Still, opponents remain dissatisfied.

Rick Rollens of Granite

Bay believes his

16-year-old son, , is

autistic because of routine childhood vaccinations, and has since championed

efforts to investigate possible causes of neurodevelopmental disorders,

including childhood immunizations.

Although no definitive link has been established between childhood vaccines

and the jump in autism rates, Rollens and many others worry that children

are exposed to too many vaccines too soon, and that any law to remove public

debate from the decision-making process is dangerous.

" It becomes a situation totally controlled by the public health community,

which to date has not found a vaccine they can't love, " Rollens said.

" With

300 new vaccines in development for such non-life-threatening conditions

such as diarrhea, stomach ulcers and mononucleosis, it will be a public

health disaster. "

Efforts to engage the state public health officer directly in the process

are being hailed by major medical organizations, including the American

Academy of Pediatrics,

the California Academy of Family Physicians and the

CMA.

Dr. Dean Blumberg, a pediatric infectious disease specialist who advises the

state on immunization issues, said too often drug company interests drive

legislative efforts to get vaccines on the list of required immunizations.

As an alternative, he cited Washington

state's approach, in which lawmakers

authorized the state Board of Health to set school vaccination requirements.

" Usually the manufacturers have a vested interest, " he said.

" Putting it in

the hands of public health officers and scientists who can consider both the

vaccines' positives and negatives is a good thing. "

Democrats oddly abet drug drive

May 11, 2007

Sacramento Bee

Page: A3

By Dan Walters

--Merck & Co. is a very large pharmaceutical company and it's Democratic

Party dogma to attack drug companies for their large profit margins.

That's why it was particularly odd when a very liberal Democratic

legislator, Assemblywoman Sally Lieber of Mountain

View, introduced a bill

that would have required every sixth-grade girl in California to have been

administered a dose of Merck's vaccine that purports to guard against

cervical cancer caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

Lieber gave up the bill after, she said, learning that a family trust owned

stock in Merck, and Assemblyman Ed , D-West Covina, picked it up.

Meanwhile, conservative " pro-family " groups mounted a fierce attack,

complaining that the measure usurped parents and assumed that young girls

would be sexually active. And it was revealed that California was just one

of many states in which Merck had mounted well-financed lobbying and media

campaigns to mandate its three-shot regimen.

No small amount of money is involved. There are about a half-million

sixth-graders in California,

and if half of them are girls, that would mean

a quarter-million vaccinations at $350 apiece each year, costing parents,

private insurance or public health programs around $90 million. It might be

worth it if the vaccine were effective at stopping large numbers of cervical

cancer cases. But is it?

A month ago, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page article,

revealing that " behind the scenes, " the vaccine, called Gardasil,

" has been

dogged by uncertainty about how effective it really is. " Although the Food

and Drug Administration agreed that Gardasil was effective against two

strains of the human papillomavirus that are thought to cause 70 percent of

cervical cancers, the FDA did not ask its reviewers to examine whether the

vaccine prevents cancer itself. In fact, the Journal reported, 361 of the

8,817 women who received Gardasil shots went on to develop cancerous

lesions, just 14 percent fewer than those administered placebos.

Merck, of course, vigorously defended the efficacy and safety of Gardasil,

but with the doubts expressed in the Journal article and elsewhere, one

might think that California

legislators would adopt a more cautious attitude

about helping a big drug company ring up big profits. Not so.

changed the bill, eliminating the direct mandate for Gardasil and

repealing all other public school student vaccination mandates effective in

2009. Instead, the new version (Assembly Bill 16) would require pupils to

receive shots recommended by the federal government's Advisory Committee on

Immunization Practices -- a list that happens to include Gardasil -- after

approval by the state health officer.

Rick Rollens, a longtime Capitol staffer and lobbyist, pleaded with the

Assembly Education Committee to hold up AB 16, saying his son " suffers

from

vaccine-induced regressive autism " and citing increasing evidence that

childhood vaccines play a role in autism. He characterized AB 16 as " an

outrageous and arrogant attempt " to shift vaccination mandates from the

Legislature to a " non-accountable bureaucrat " and a remote federal

committee. Nevertheless, the bill sailed through the Assembly's education

and health committees with Democratic votes.

On Thursday, the New England Journal of Medicine published a research

article saying the benefits of Gardasil were modest and an editorial

advising a cautious approach to its use because of concerns about its

efficacy -- a far cry from mass vaccinations costing $90 million a year.

Despite those warnings, a spokesman for says he'll pursue the

bill, continuing an odd rush to judgment by politicians who are usually

leery of drug company marketing.

Dan Walters: Politicians afflicted by myopia

By Dan Walters - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Assemblyman Ed is an optometrist by trade, so he's an expert on

the symptoms of myopia, or what most call nearsightedness -- clearly seeing

what's right before our eyes but experiencing blurred vision while viewing

distant objects.

Political myopia is the tendency of officeholders -- and often voters -- to

make decisions on the dynamics of the moment and ignore longer-term

consequences. One example: a bipartisan decision seven years ago this month

to spend most of a one-time, $12 billion state income tax windfall on

permanent tax cuts and spending, thus creating a " structural deficit "

that

still plagues the budget.

That brings us back to , a West Covina Democrat who is carrying two

particularly shortsighted bills that have cleared the Assembly and are

pending in the Senate.

One, approved Monday by the Senate Public Employment and Retirement

Committee after a five-minute hearing, is a questionable fix for a decree by

the nationwide General Accounting Standards Board that beginning July 1,

state and local governments must account for long-term retiree health care

costs.

The other bill with potentially adverse consequences would require

California's

schoolchildren to receive whatever vaccines the federal

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices might decree, eliminating

specific vaccinations now in California

law.

The measure, Assembly Bill 16, could potentially add dozens of new vaccines

to the regimen without specific state evaluation, which is questionable on

its face. Parents of autistic children have criticized it, citing research

indicating childhood vaccinations may be a contributing cause of the

debilitating disease.

The underlying push for AB 16, however, is even more troubling. It's clearly

a response to the nationwide drive by Merck & Co. to mandate its vaccine

that purports to guard against cervical cancer caused by a sexually

transmitted virus. It would cost parents and/or government upward of $90

million a year to administer the vaccine to all subteen girls in California.

AB 16 originally would have added Gardasil to the list of required vaccines.

But in response to the controversy over Merck's drive, it was amended to

take the sneakier approach. It's a classic example of political myopia,

because serious medical questions have been raised about the efficacy and

safety of Gardasil, including a recent article in the New England Journal of

Medicine urging caution in widespread use.

" First, do no harm " is a basic tenet of medical ethics. Politicians

should

adopt it as well.

_____

See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>

..