Kyoto: "socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations"- Harper

When our beloved Prime Minister Stephen Harper, essentially opted out of the Kyoto Protocol which was ratified by Canada in 2002, it couldn't have come as a big surprise. Can anyone really blame him? I mean, he is a politician; lying, cheating, and being deceitful is what politicians get paid to do. What other options did he truly have? With Canada currently being approximately 30% over our target emissions, what else could he have done but sign onto the Asia-Pacific Partnership or the 'anti-Kyoto partnership' as some like to call it?

To understand the entire situation, it's important to lay out the facts about Kyoto vs. Asia Pacific

Canada in Kyoto
-An agreement to limit the exposure of GHG's (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere in the battle against global warming (climate change)

-Canada ratified Kyoto December, 2002
-The agreement was that Canada would cut GHG emissions by 6% from the 1990 levels by 2012 (563 megatonnes/year)

Canada in Asia-Pacific

-An agreement for the same objectives
-Includes the 6 biggest contributors to GHG's in the world (almost half), including two countries that hadn't ratified Kyoto; Australia, USA, China, India, Japan, Korea
-No real targets; all countries set their own emission targets

...What really sounds like the better deal?

The idea of climate change seems to be just another thing that is not being taken seriously by anyone, but everyone should be aware of the Stern Report. It assesses global warming from an economic perspective urges countries at act NOW, before it's too late.

Personally, the Asia-Pacific Partnership sounds like an attempt at being noble over not being able to keep up with Kyoto. It is no surprise that countries like the US, which spew about 24.3% of the world's GHG's into the atmosphere would want to be a part of such a light-hearted deal, but by placing Canada in that same category, it simply seems like another move made by the U.S's 51st date. We've already jumped on the "War on Terror" bandwagon. What's next? Canada's support in the invasion of Iran?

Harper announced that his plan was to cut Canada's emissions by 60-70% by 2050, but does this even sound reasonable for a country that couldn't even cut its emissions by 6% in 16 years? We've heard promises like that before from our Prime Minister before. Does anyone recall the income trust fiasco?

While some are praising Harper, calling him a "bridge builder," I don't think of this as anything more than a desperation move, and a well-planned political move. With less than two weeks to the upcoming election, and the 'going-green' movement becoming an important platform, Harper clearly had some sort of strategy going into this election, but I can hardly call a move like this chivalrous, or smart even. Harper didn't even sincerely mention failing Kyoto targets, thus, instead of trying to sidestep the issue by replacing Kyoto with another agreement, he should have taken responsibility for it, and admitted that this was his only option. But instead, as politicians do, he, very tactfully, announced that there was ""an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework." In laymen's, "I failed the first time. This is my second attempt."

I don't think anyone appreciates the political mumbo jumbo that Harper continues to dish out, thus, I've decided that until Harper can really pull through with his promises, or admit his shortcomings, I'm ready to join the `Down With Harper' movement this election.

Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?

The question of whether one's daughter should take the HPV injection is an attempt at simplifying an issue with several, complex dimensions. After reading the array of articles and information available about cervical cancer and the HPV virus, it's difficult for me to determine a solid response to the question, but with all the scepticism that surrounds the matter, would Ireally allow my hypothetical, 10 year old daughter to take a drug, whose effects she wouldn’t understand, and whose consequences, have not been thoroughly tested? Most definitely not. Not yet anyway.

To summarize the facts, according to Merck Frosst, the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the whole ordeal, 1 Canadian woman dies each day of the year from cervical cancer. The injection, known as Gardasil is supposed to prevent 4 of the approximate 200 strains of the Human Papilloma Virus. HPV-16, a target of the injection is found in 50% of all cervical cancer, thus, an injection that suggests the prevention of the second or third most prevalent cancers among women (after breast) seems too good to be true. Is it?

As many of the comments written in response the article stated, it is important to do your own research. I asked myself how reliable Merck Frosst is, and I ended up finding out some interesting information.

Merck introduced a drug called Vioxx, which was prescribed to deal with the pain of arthritis, in 1999. Soon after, in September,2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market. Why? In that time span, it was linked to 28,000 deaths involving an increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular complications. Furthermore, over 80 million people were prescribed the drug, with confidence, yet even the FDA, who fast tracked the licensing of Gardasil didn't have complete confidence in it. Steven Galson, the acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation & Research said, "this is not a total surprise," in regards to the withdrawal of Vioxx in late 2004. In 2001, Vioxx was labelled with a warning about heart risks, yet the drug was still licensed by the FDA in less than 4 months. Sound suspicious? It should.

The legitimacy of Merck is also questioned specifically in the state of Texas. In early 2007, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas mandated the vaccination of young girls with the vaccine sold by Merck. Why would this be of any suspicion you ask? What if you knew that a lobbyist of Merck served as the governor's chief of staff? In summary, an advisor to the governor now works for Merck, the drug company that provided funding to the campaign of the governor, who essentially used his despotic power to mandate, without practically any public debate, the mass vaccination of young girls. What does this mean exactly? Beginning in September 2008, Texan girls in the sixth grade will have to receive injections of Gardasil. This means billions in profits for Merck. Actually, to be more specific, at $360-$400 a course, Merck will make an estimated $3.2 billion by 2010.

The issue at hand here is complicated enough without paying too much attention on the Gardasil debacle in the United States, thus, let's focus on the issue here in Canada. The article states that "Over the next few weeks, however, girls in specific grades will be offered the drug for free – with parental consent – in the rest of Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland,” but why can other provinces, like BC wait another year? Furthermore, why do parents have only a few days to decide whether or not their daughter should get the vaccine? What is the penalty for taking more time to decide? About $400, which is not guaranteed to be covered by all insurance companies. Not only that, but as seen with Vioxx, the consequences could be much more devastating.

Fortunately, it's not all bad. On its website, Merck does mention its significant accomplishments, like that of Singular, which treats asthma patients in over 75 countries. SINGULAIR® received the Prix Galien Canada 2000 Innovative Product in 2000, and its developers also received an award for its success, but with all the cynicism surrounding Gardasil, a couple of meagre awards hardly seem like enough leverage to convince me that Merck is a reliable company, devoted purely to the well being of society. Is its true objective to sincerely protect the lives of potentially millions of women in the world or does it have ulterior motives? Do the benefits truly outweigh the risks? I think there is enough information available to be able to respond with a "no," but that doesn't mean that through more research, and by taking more time to test its products, Merck cannot prove disbelievers wrong.

With that being said, it seems as though the great Dionysus Cato said it best when he stated, "Patience is the greatest of all virtues." Why not wait until we are positive the benefits completely outweigh the risks?

...And until then, as ludicrous an idea as it may sound, why not practice the of art abstinence?

First Entry

Hello World!
So this is my first blog entry. I just thought I'd make it a little more interesting than "hello world." I don't know if I'm the only one.. but I'm excited to do this. :)