More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

In article ,
JG wrote:
"David Wright" wrote in message
y.com...

Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.

I don't think most members are anti-vaccination per se, they're simply
opposed to forced (mandatory) vaccination (actually *any* medical
procedure/treatment that's coerced). See, for example, "AAPS Opposes
Vaccine Mandates"; go to http://www.aapsonline.org/ and scroll down the
list on the left-hand side of the page.

Whether the members are opposed to vaccination will have to remain
speculation, since we don't have the ability to survey them.

However, the organization itself has a decidedly anti-vaccination
slant. Consider, for example, the silly article by Geier & Geier that
ran in the March 2003 issue of their "refereed" (or so they brag)
magazine. It purported to show that children were getting horrific
doses of mercury (as thimerosal) from vaccines, and that this was
causing autism, etc.

Since all major childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free, the
article was out of date even when it was published. Furthermore,
publishing this article is something the AAPS web site brags about
(on a different page), *and* they make the claim that removing
thimerosal from vaccines will *eliminate* autism. (The authors of the
paper in question didn't go that far, though they went pretty far.)

While I don't wish autism on anyone, it will be interesting to watch
the AAPS backpedal away from this stance in a few years, when the
autism is still with us despite the mercury being gone. I think we'll
see more spinning than a weight loss class at Gold's Gym.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Beth" wrote in message
om...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...

(...)

It calls itself a nationwide organization of physicians and surgeons.
Yet it
consists of only a few thousand members, not all of whom are physicians
(and
it fails to release actual number or percentages of physicians). This
seems
a bit ingenuine to me.

"Nationwide" refers to the location of members, not the numbers. I
don't presume that every "nationwide" organization is necessarily a
large one. As for the composition of membership, I haven't seen
anything to indicate that the majority of members are not physicians
and surgeons. That some are not is not, in an of itself, an
indictment of the organization. Many, if not most, professional
organizations will allow any interested person to join and pay dues.
I was once a member of a small national organization for women
engineers. My recollection is that men were allowed to join and pay
dues, attend meetings, etc. I don't recall any in our section, but I
believe there were some in others.



That's
basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
a better one.

A small fringe group is, IMHO, an accurate description of this group. I
don'
think it is an ad hominem attack. Being small is not necessary a bad
thing.
But the group does not represent most physicians.

Okay, the group does not represent most physicians and being a small
fringe groups is not a bad thing. I have no problem with that myself.
But I took your statement to indicate that you thought I should
rethink the credibility that I gave the article based on that fact.
If being a small fringe group is not cause to do that, then why do you
make that statement? If is is cause to do that, then it's an ad
hominem argument and unconvincing.

I am calling the group what I think it is. I never suggested that being a
small fringe group is a good or bad thing. It just is what the group, IMHO,
is. Just something to consider when considering its arguements.

The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.

Funny, I have seen these claims many times over. Yet, I yet to see
anyone
provide evidence that any of the men or women on the committees changed
their vote or were dishonest.

Apparently, for years the meetings have been held without accurate
minutes being released to the public. And the details of all the
"conflict of Interest" statements are not being released to the public
either. Exactly what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see?
Signed confessions?

Besides, the reason bias is such a danger is because for honest
conscientious folk, which I presume most of those people are, it leads
to unconscious rationalizations to justify making decisions for
reasons people aren't consciously aware of. They tend to make the
decisions that lie in their own best interests because they convince
themselves that it is what is best for everyone. When so many members
of the committee have potential conflict of interests and they are all
in the same direction - pro-vaccination, it's a safe bet that the
committee as a whole is not giving the anti-vaccination arguments the
consideration they are due. That is why I find those details given in
the article to be so disturbing.

Gee, most of the members are physicians. Do you expect them to be
antivaccination? I don't think this is about pro- or anti-vaccination,
though. It is about whether or not a particular vaccine has been shown to be
safe and effective. From what I can tell, the CDC, ACIP and FDA have been
doing a good job of tracking adverse events. One good example is the
problems with the rotavirus vaccine. The VAERS data picked up potential
problems very early after the introduction of the vaccine. THe maker of the
vaccine then pulled the vaccine from the market because of liability
concerns.

Now either the claims made in the article are true or they are not.
Since they are verifiable claims, and not particularly outlandish
ones, they are not hard to believe. I see no evidence posted that
indicates those claims are false. If you wish to dispute the claims
made, please provide a source or cite.

And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
strike me as anti-vaccination particularly.
It just wasn't
pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
credible, not less.

What balance? Almost every one of its statements discourages or
questions
vaccination. Does the organization talk about how vaccines saved lives?
I
don't think the organization or its leaders are balanced.

They seem to be discouraging only some vaccinations, not all. It's
not a blanket condemnation. I don't consider questioning vaccination
to be an anti-vaccination stance. A lot of the questions and
criticisms they leveled make sense to me. I tend to think of the
anti-vaccination people as being anti ALL vaccinations. Does simply
asking questions and considering the possibility that some
vaccinations are not worth the risk make one anti-vaccination?

No. But I look at the organization and its actions over the last 3 or 4
years. That is the impression I get. We are allowed to draw our own
conclusions.

BTW, it doesn't discourage all vaccinations, as you point out. However, it
does not really point out that some vaccines are good (it might say that in
some letters, but it does not give anything like equal weight to the good
vaccines).

Jeff

Beth

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
(David Wright) wrote:

Yeah, they talk about the total worldwide spending on vaccines, which
I seem to recall is in the vicinity of $6 billion.

That's about equal to the European sales of St John's Wort. Which is
not profitable so there is no money for research, of course.

The thing about research on vaccines is that someone (presumable the people
doing the studies) own the patent on the vaccine being studied. So, if you
show that a vaccine prevents disease, at least you have sole marketing
rights for several years. If you show that St. John's Work or a vitamin
works at something, you don't gain a marketing advantage. Anyone can use
your research to increase their sailes. The same thing is true with patented
drugs. That is why drug makers pushed all the new antihypertensive
medications -- they can sell them for more than generic drugs that have been
used for decades.

Jeff

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

In article ,
Jeff Utz wrote:

Go to the website. Anyone can join.

But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
members, or some similar term.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article ,
Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Jeff Utz" wrote
No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

Do you or David Wright ever give evidence to support what
you say?

Bwahahaha! Says Roger, the king of the unsupported assertion.
If you'll cast your mind back a few days, Roger, you'll recall
that this thread got rolling via one of your typical unsupported
assertions, for which you have since provided no evidence.

The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,

There is no way to know this.

and they support voluntary vaccination. See the above web
site for details.

I did. They didn't exactly fall all over themselves recommending
vaccination, now did they?

Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

So?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article ,
Beth wrote:
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"David Wright" wrote
Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.

No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
are peds and who give vaccines regularly.

AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm


I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
practioners.

What does it matter if it's a small fringe organization? That's
basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
a better one.

Not really. In a case like this one, we have to ask "why is it a
small organization? Is it something about their belief system?"

The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary

I assume you mean "advisory" there.

committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.

My reading of the article was that, given the funding setup for
research that exists today, it's hard to find a "big name" in the
field who hasn't, at some point, taken research money from the
vaccine manufacturers. This may be a less-than-perfect state of
affairs, and I'd like to see it change, but, for now, we're stuck
with it. The alternative would seem to be to staff the committee
with non-experts. That's not an improvement, to my mind.

And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
strike me as anti-vaccination particularly. It just wasn't
pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
credible, not less.

It struck me as anti-vaccination particularly, but I don't know how
much you know about vaccination.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:49:20 -0400, "Jeff Utz"
wrote:

"JG" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...

Go to the website. Anyone can join.

So? That certainly doesn't prove your assertion that "Many, perhaps
most, of its members are not health practioners (sic)."

Correct. However, it does support it. Unfortunately, AAPS does not support
provide any numbers on its membership at all. I would think, because they
are too embarrassed about it.

You are such a goober.

PF

"David Wright" wrote
Whether the members are opposed to vaccination will have to remain
speculation, since we don't have the ability to survey them.

You made the unsupported assertion, and as usual, failed to
provide any evidence.

I happen to know AAPS members that support vaccination.
Check out the AAPS web page. AAPS expresses its opinions
there. They are not opposed to vaccination.

magazine. It purported to show that children were getting horrific
doses of mercury (as thimerosal) from vaccines, and that this was
causing autism, etc.

It is not just AAPS that is concerned about mercury in vaccines.
Also the FDA, CDC, EPA, Congress, etc.

Since all major childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free, the
article was out of date even when it was published.

According to the PDR, several of the vaccines still contain thimerosal.

"David Wright" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Jeff Utz wrote:

Go to the website. Anyone can join.

But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
members, or some similar term.

Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on full or any
other members.

Jeff

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Beth" wrote
Many, if not most, professional
organizations will allow any interested person to join and pay dues.
I was once a member of a small national organization for women
engineers. My recollection is that men were allowed to join and pay
dues, attend meetings, etc. I don't recall any in our section, but I
believe there were some in others.

For that matter, a non-engineer could probably join and pay dues
also. But hardly anyone would. I am sure that AAPS is 99%
physicians. Certainly all of the leadership is.


Why are you so sure?