If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...duleResult.cfm
Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
On Mar 19, 6:58*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:
http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
On Mar 19, 8:51*pm, wrote:
On Mar 19, 6:58*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote: http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. All of these vaccines with their added immune adjuncts given to immature immune systems without clear safety studies is simply irresponsible Any responsible scientist evaluating this protocal would agree.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
In article ,
Kulacz wrote: On Mar 19, 8:51*pm, wrote: On Mar 19, 6:58*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote: http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. All of these vaccines with their added immune adjuncts given to immature immune systems without clear safety studies is simply irresponsible Any responsible scientist evaluating this protocal would agree.. Are you under the impression that there are no studies done of vaccines before they are released? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?" -- Bill Maher |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
"David Wright" wrote: In article , Kulacz wrote: On Mar 19, 8:51 pm, wrote: On Mar 19, 6:58 pm, "Jan Drew" wrote: http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. All of these vaccines with their added immune adjuncts given to immature immune systems without clear safety studies is simply irresponsible Any responsible scientist evaluating this protocal would agree.. Are you under the impression that there are no studies done of vaccines before they are released? Half true. So *Organzized medicne* and those with vested Interest JAB at 12 hours after birth, even though they have not be proven safe. Then they LIE and say they are safe. This is so-called evident based medicine. Why would any parent want vaccines BEFORE they are studied? Advisary commitees...conclude...Their conclusions are based on nothing? More $$$$$ is the MAIN thing, and kids be damned. http://www.fda.gov/ola/2000/anthraxvaccine.html Our confidence in this vaccine, like all vaccines, is based upon four components: first - the review of manufacturing and clinical trials and subsequent clinical laboratory experience with the vaccine; second - ongoing inspections of the manufacturing facility; third - our lot release requirements; and fourth - our ongoing collection and analysis of adverse event reports. So far, the data gathered from VAERS reports on anthrax vaccine do not signal concerns about the safety of the vaccine. The Agency will continue to closely monitor and investigate reports of serious adverse events received on all vaccines, including anthrax, to assure that only safe products are on the market. [our confidence....more money is our pockets.] http://hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1211 1/25/06 3 p.m: The first paragraph has been changed; the number of children involved in the review has been corrected. U.S. health authorities should have waited for more evidence before recommending routine flu shots for healthy toddlers, according to a new systematic review of studies involving more than a quarter of a million children worldwide. Only a few studies of the vaccine have been conducted in children under 2 years old, and findings suggest that the injection is no better than a placebo at preventing influenza. Moreover, only one tiny study has looked specifically at the safety of flu shots in toddlers. Based on these findings, the reviewers question whether all healthy children between 6 months and 23 months of age should receive the flu shot as recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2004. "National policies for the vaccination of healthy young children are based on very little evidence," say the authors, led by Dr. Sue Smith of Oxford University. The review appears in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic. Until recently, flu shots were promoted primarily for those with chronic illnesses, people over age 65 and health-care workers. However, studies have shown that children under 2 are hospitalized for flu at the same rate as senior citizens, and the CDC reported that more than 150 children under 18 died from complications of flu during the 2003-2004 season. The Cochrane review comprised 51 studies of influenza vaccines - including 17 papers translated from Russian for the first time - involving more than 250,000 healthy youngsters under age 16. Yet only a fraction of these studies focused on children younger than 2. Two efficacy studies involving about 1,000 toddlers indicate that flu shots containing inactivated virus - the only vaccine approved for this age group - are no more effective at preventing the flu than placebo. Furthermore, the reviewers "found no evidence to back up the claims that the vaccines prevent deaths from influenza or other serious complications," said coauthor Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration vaccine program. "They may do so, but there is no evidence at present." Nearly three dozen studies on vaccine safety followed a similar pattern. "We were astonished to find only one safety study of inactivated vaccine in children under 2 years carried out nearly 30 years ago in 35 children," say the review authors. Although 11 studies presented safety data for flu shots in youngsters up to 18 years old, such aggregate data is inadequate for assessing safety among toddlers, said Jefferson. For children older than 2, the findings are quite different. More than 15,000 observations from high-quality studies indicate that flu shots prevent influenza in 59 percent of children who receive them. A nasal spray vaccine made from live virus - approved since 2004 for children over 5 - is even better, with 79 percent efficacy. Safety data for older children were collected and reported in such a wide variety of formats that no analysis was possible. "There is an immediate need to standardize safety outcome data," says the review. Given the paucity of research on children under 2, the review also calls for more randomized trials on the efficacy and safety of inactivated vaccine in this age group. "All this homework should be done before the vaccine is recommended for use in any population, not after," said Jefferson. Yet devoting too much time to research also has downsides. "It would be a shame to wait until every study from A to Z is completed before recommending a vaccination," said Henry Bernstein, M.D., a Dartmouth Medical School pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. After all, children may be dying from the flu in the meantime. "It's a difference in strategy. We believe the vaccine is safe and effective in older people, the chronically ill and health-care workers. There's little reason to believe the same thing wouldn't help in 6- to 23-month olds." Monitoring of vaccine responses continues long after they are in widespread use to catch any problems that may unexpectedly appear, he added. [we believe--little reason to believe they won't help. Monitoring AFTER kids are jabbed, a bit late.] Only half of the 180 million Americans who should receive flu vaccine each year actually do, says Bernstein. "Large research projects can be expensive. I'd rather spend some of the money on education and making the vaccine available to all who need it." http://www.hvtn.org/science/publications_policy.html HVTN Publication Policy All HVTN manuscripts and abstracts ("publications") must, before submission, be reviewed by the Protocol Committee. Manuscripts and abstracts published without proper review are not counted in a site's NEC annual review. Vaccine developers have the right to review publications before submission; clinical trials agreements may specify requirements for authorship and review. Authorship All publications must meet the criteria for authorship, disclosure, scientific integrity, and other requirements of peer-reviewed scientific journals. The author line must conclude with "and the NIAID HIV Vaccine Trials Network," and NIAID funding must be acknowledged, specifying the grant number if applicable. If applicable, the vaccine developer is normally included as a coauthor. For core protocol publications (reporting on primary and secondary objectives of a single trial), the protocol team serves as the writing team, usually with the protocol chair as lead author. For cross-protocol publications, leaders of the network or appropriate science committee typically appoint the lead author. Additional authors may include other investigators, usually members of the appropriate science committee, and/or site investigators. For ancillary publications, the lead author is the investigator who proposed and carried out the ancillary study. To submit a manuscript involving HVTN participants or samples, authors must receive written permission from the protocol chair or (in studies involving more than 1 protocol) from the appropriate science committee leadership. If the lead author is not an HVTN member, at least 1 HVTN member (chosen by the chair of the appropriate science committee) serves as network liaison and is included as coauthor. Publication of ancillary studies should not precede core protocol publication, unless agreed to by the protocol chair or chair of the appropriate science committee. The protocol chair or other protocol team members present data at scientific meetings. Vaccine developers are included as coauthors, if appropriate. Review HVTN manuscripts and abstracts are reviewed in 3 stages. The first 2 stages are prerequisites of the third. 1. Consensus of authors All authors-including vaccine developers-must sign off on a publication before submitting it to the Protocol Committee. The Protocol Committee will not review abstracts or manuscripts submitted without this sign-off. 2. Approval by site principal investigator or HVTN associate director for scientific support If the lead author of a publication is not a principal investigator, that author's site PI must approve the publication before submission. Ancillary publications and cross-protocol publications must be approved by the chair of the appropriate science committee. Ancillary publications may also require review by protocol chairs or by protocol teams (including -vaccine developers). Publications by lead authors in HVTN Core must be approved by the author's unit chief, then submitted to the associate director for scientific support. 3. Review by Protocol Committee The Protocol Committee consists of 3 co-chairs, 6 non-US site investigators, 6 US site investigators, 2 clinic coordinators, a global CAB representative, a SCHARP representative, a Lab Program representative, and 2 DAIDS representatives. The Protocol Committee reviews the author line with the standard criteria for scientific authorship in mind. The lead author should send his/her manuscript or abstract with a completed submission form to the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant with ample time for review according to the guidelines below. Manuscripts are assigned a primary reviewer from the Protocol Committee. The manuscript is returned to the lead author with major comments (required changes) and minor comments (recommended changes). If there are required changes, the manuscript must be revised and resubmitted for further review. This process is repeated until no required changes remain. In case of persistent disagreement between authors and reviewers, final judgment rests with the Scientific Steering Committee chair or the chair of the appropriate science committee. Abstracts undergo a similar but abbreviated review. They are assigned a primary reviewer who responds to the lead author within five working days. If there are required changes, the abstract must be revised and resubmitted. The abstract is also circulated to members of the Protocol Committee for comments. The Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant will notify the lead author when the review is complete. The lead author should notify the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant when the abstract or manuscript has been accepted and send a final version for filing in the HVTN Publications Database and posting on the HVTN members website. Deadlines Only those review comments received on time will be considered. The clock starts when the draft publication is sent to reviewers by the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant. The author is notified of receipt by fax or e-mail. Time allowed for review is 10 working days for manuscripts, 5 for abstracts. A vaccine developer may be allowed more time for review (often 20 working days for manuscripts), if specified in the clinical trials agreement. Submission of abstracts must allow sufficient time for review before conference deadlines. These timelines also apply to the review processes outlined in subheadings 1 and 2 above. For manuscripts reporting results of a specific HVTN trial (covering the primary and secondary objectives), a complete draft must be produced no more than 3 months after the study is unblinded and the data are available. If this is not done, HVTN leadership may assign a new lead author from the protocol team. Submission form and tracking A manuscript/abstract submission form must accompany any submission to the Protocol Committee. All submissions to the Protocol Committee, at any stage of review, are made through the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant. (Earlier reviews, including those by the vaccine developer, are arranged directly by the writing team.) Manuscripts and abstracts may be submitted in hard copy or in a commonly used, editable electronic format such as Microsoft Word. Submit manuscripts, abstracts, or questions to the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant: The Protocol Committee Admin distributes draft publications for review, and tracks drafts as well as published products. For tracking purposes, authors must report the final disposition of publications to the Protocol Committee Admin. [must? Who checks to see if they are not??] Participant identification numbers Participant ID numbers from trials are not to be used in any publications. If ID numbers are needed, the SDMC will issue new ones. [WOW!!Loose cannons. Reprint distribution The publications coordinator distributes reprints of published material at the request of the corresponding author. The request must be in writing and accompanied by the number of copies to be distributed. Unless otherwise requested, distribution will be to all authors, DAIDS representatives, the vaccine developer, and the HVTN Core Operations Center. Additional distributions may be made as directed by the lead author. [and the lead author is truthful? HA!] Publicity and media Media inquiries and press releases should be referred to the NIAID Office of Communications Reporting and Public Response (OC/NIAID). The OC/NIAID and VCRB Program Officer should approve any press releases and responses to inquiries (t. 301-496-5717). Local media activity should be coordinated with the NIAID Office of Communications. [NIAID=*Organized medicine with vested interest!] -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net prodigy...comcast--copper.... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
On Mar 19, 11:45*pm, Kulacz wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:51*pm, wrote: On Mar 19, 6:58*pm, "Jan Drew" wrote: http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult.... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. All of these vaccines with their added immune adjuncts given to immature immune systems without clear safety studies is simply irresponsible A common tactic is to claim that there are no studies, but, the claimant has not really looked. The fact is, that prior to approval, there ARE studies that do just that. Allow me to suggest that you get up to speed on the vaccine approval process. Any responsible scientist evaluating this protocal would agree.. That is what is generally referred to as a false appeal to unknown authority. A clear logical fallacy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
On Mar 20, 1:51*am, "Jan Drew" wrote:
Until recently, flu shots were promoted primarily for those with chronic illnesses, people over age 65 and health-care workers. However, studies have shown that children under 2 are hospitalized for flu at the same rate as senior citizens, and the CDC reported that more than 150 children under 18 died from complications of flu during the 2003-2004 season. Very interesting article. Concerning the above paragraph, recent reports tell us that the flu shot for seniors is of no more value than placebo, yet more and more flu shots are being given. Even more on the downside, those who are receiving the mercury laden shots have a much higher rate of alzheimer's dementia. While the deaths of 150 children is unfortunalte, how about the 3,000 infants who die yearly within 4 days of getting their "well...but dead" baby shots? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Number of Vaccinations before age six
David Wright wrote:
http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsu...ScheduleResult... Just look at the number of vaccinations by age six. Starting at 12 hours after birth. We can obviously give big pharma and the pediatricians a big $KACHING$ $ for all that effort, right? There's no money like easy money, sung to the tune of what? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. All of these vaccines with their added immune adjuncts given to immature immune systems without clear safety studies is simply irresponsible Any responsible scientist evaluating this protocal would agree.. Are you under the impression that there are no studies done of vaccines before they are released? Half true. So *Organzized medicne* and those with vested Interest JAB at 12 hours after birth, even though they have not be proven safe. Then they LIE and say they are safe. This is so-called evident based medicine. Why would any parent want vaccines BEFORE they are studied? Advisary commitees...conclude...Their conclusions are based on nothing? More $$$$$ is the MAIN thing, and kids be damned. http://www.fda.gov/ola/2000/anthraxvaccine.html Our confidence in this vaccine, like all vaccines, is based upon four components: first - the review of manufacturing and clinical trials and subsequent clinical laboratory experience with the vaccine; second - ongoing inspections of the manufacturing facility; third - our lot release requirements; and fourth - our ongoing collection and analysis of adverse event reports. So far, the data gathered from VAERS reports on anthrax vaccine do not signal concerns about the safety of the vaccine. The Agency will continue to closely monitor and investigate reports of serious adverse events received on all vaccines, including anthrax, to assure that only safe products are on the market. [our confidence....more money is our pockets.] http://hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1211 1/25/06 3 p.m: The first paragraph has been changed; the number of children involved in the review has been corrected. U.S. health authorities should have waited for more evidence before recommending routine flu shots for healthy toddlers, according to a new systematic review of studies involving more than a quarter of a million children worldwide. Only a few studies of the vaccine have been conducted in children under 2 years old, and findings suggest that the injection is no better than a placebo at preventing influenza. Moreover, only one tiny study has looked specifically at the safety of flu shots in toddlers. Based on these findings, the reviewers question whether all healthy children between 6 months and 23 months of age should receive the flu shot as recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2004. "National policies for the vaccination of healthy young children are based on very little evidence," say the authors, led by Dr. Sue Smith of Oxford University. The review appears in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates medical research. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing medical trials on a topic. Until recently, flu shots were promoted primarily for those with chronic illnesses, people over age 65 and health-care workers. However, studies have shown that children under 2 are hospitalized for flu at the same rate as senior citizens, and the CDC reported that more than 150 children under 18 died from complications of flu during the 2003-2004 season. The Cochrane review comprised 51 studies of influenza vaccines - including 17 papers translated from Russian for the first time - involving more than 250,000 healthy youngsters under age 16. Yet only a fraction of these studies focused on children younger than 2. Two efficacy studies involving about 1,000 toddlers indicate that flu shots containing inactivated virus - the only vaccine approved for this age group - are no more effective at preventing the flu than placebo. Furthermore, the reviewers "found no evidence to back up the claims that the vaccines prevent deaths from influenza or other serious complications," said coauthor Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration vaccine program. "They may do so, but there is no evidence at present." Nearly three dozen studies on vaccine safety followed a similar pattern. "We were astonished to find only one safety study of inactivated vaccine in children under 2 years carried out nearly 30 years ago in 35 children," say the review authors. Although 11 studies presented safety data for flu shots in youngsters up to 18 years old, such aggregate data is inadequate for assessing safety among toddlers, said Jefferson. For children older than 2, the findings are quite different. More than 15,000 observations from high-quality studies indicate that flu shots prevent influenza in 59 percent of children who receive them. A nasal spray vaccine made from live virus - approved since 2004 for children over 5 - is even better, with 79 percent efficacy. Safety data for older children were collected and reported in such a wide variety of formats that no analysis was possible. "There is an immediate need to standardize safety outcome data," says the review. Given the paucity of research on children under 2, the review also calls for more randomized trials on the efficacy and safety of inactivated vaccine in this age group. "All this homework should be done before the vaccine is recommended for use in any population, not after," said Jefferson. Yet devoting too much time to research also has downsides. "It would be a shame to wait until every study from A to Z is completed before recommending a vaccination," said Henry Bernstein, M.D., a Dartmouth Medical School pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. After all, children may be dying from the flu in the meantime. "It's a difference in strategy. We believe the vaccine is safe and effective in older people, the chronically ill and health-care workers. There's little reason to believe the same thing wouldn't help in 6- to 23-month olds." Monitoring of vaccine responses continues long after they are in widespread use to catch any problems that may unexpectedly appear, he added. [we believe--little reason to believe they won't help. Monitoring AFTER kids are jabbed, a bit late.] Only half of the 180 million Americans who should receive flu vaccine each year actually do, says Bernstein. "Large research projects can be expensive. I'd rather spend some of the money on education and making the vaccine available to all who need it." http://www.hvtn.org/science/publications_policy.html HVTN Publication Policy All HVTN manuscripts and abstracts ("publications") must, before submission, be reviewed by the Protocol Committee. Manuscripts and abstracts published without proper review are not counted in a site's NEC annual review. Vaccine developers have the right to review publications before submission; clinical trials agreements may specify requirements for authorship and review. Authorship All publications must meet the criteria for authorship, disclosure, scientific integrity, and other requirements of peer-reviewed scientific journals. The author line must conclude with "and the NIAID HIV Vaccine Trials Network," and NIAID funding must be acknowledged, specifying the grant number if applicable. If applicable, the vaccine developer is normally included as a coauthor. For core protocol publications (reporting on primary and secondary objectives of a single trial), the protocol team serves as the writing team, usually with the protocol chair as lead author. For cross-protocol publications, leaders of the network or appropriate science committee typically appoint the lead author. Additional authors may include other investigators, usually members of the appropriate science committee, and/or site investigators. For ancillary publications, the lead author is the investigator who proposed and carried out the ancillary study. To submit a manuscript involving HVTN participants or samples, authors must receive written permission from the protocol chair or (in studies involving more than 1 protocol) from the appropriate science committee leadership. If the lead author is not an HVTN member, at least 1 HVTN member (chosen by the chair of the appropriate science committee) serves as network liaison and is included as coauthor. Publication of ancillary studies should not precede core protocol publication, unless agreed to by the protocol chair or chair of the appropriate science committee. The protocol chair or other protocol team members present data at scientific meetings. Vaccine developers are included as coauthors, if appropriate. Review HVTN manuscripts and abstracts are reviewed in 3 stages. The first 2 stages are prerequisites of the third. 1. Consensus of authors All authors-including vaccine developers-must sign off on a publication before submitting it to the Protocol Committee. The Protocol Committee will not review abstracts or manuscripts submitted without this sign-off. 2. Approval by site principal investigator or HVTN associate director for scientific support If the lead author of a publication is not a principal investigator, that author's site PI must approve the publication before submission. Ancillary publications and cross-protocol publications must be approved by the chair of the appropriate science committee. Ancillary publications may also require review by protocol chairs or by protocol teams (including -vaccine developers). Publications by lead authors in HVTN Core must be approved by the author's unit chief, then submitted to the associate director for scientific support. 3. Review by Protocol Committee The Protocol Committee consists of 3 co-chairs, 6 non-US site investigators, 6 US site investigators, 2 clinic coordinators, a global CAB representative, a SCHARP representative, a Lab Program representative, and 2 DAIDS representatives. The Protocol Committee reviews the author line with the standard criteria for scientific authorship in mind. The lead author should send his/her manuscript or abstract with a completed submission form to the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant with ample time for review according to the guidelines below. Manuscripts are assigned a primary reviewer from the Protocol Committee. The manuscript is returned to the lead author with major comments (required changes) and minor comments (recommended changes). If there are required changes, the manuscript must be revised and resubmitted for further review. This process is repeated until no required changes remain. In case of persistent disagreement between authors and reviewers, final judgment rests with the Scientific Steering Committee chair or the chair of the appropriate science committee. Abstracts undergo a similar but abbreviated review. They are assigned a primary reviewer who responds to the lead author within five working days. If there are required changes, the abstract must be revised and resubmitted. The abstract is also circulated to members of the Protocol Committee for comments. The Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant will notify the lead author when the review is complete. The lead author should notify the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant when the abstract or manuscript has been accepted and send a final version for filing in the HVTN Publications Database and posting on the HVTN members website. Deadlines Only those review comments received on time will be considered. The clock starts when the draft publication is sent to reviewers by the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant. The author is notified of receipt by fax or e-mail. Time allowed for review is 10 working days for manuscripts, 5 for abstracts. A vaccine developer may be allowed more time for review (often 20 working days for manuscripts), if specified in the clinical trials agreement. Submission of abstracts must allow sufficient time for review before conference deadlines. These timelines also apply to the review processes outlined in subheadings 1 and 2 above. For manuscripts reporting results of a specific HVTN trial (covering the primary and secondary objectives), a complete draft must be produced no more than 3 months after the study is unblinded and the data are available. If this is not done, HVTN leadership may assign a new lead author from the protocol team. Submission form and tracking A manuscript/abstract submission form must accompany any submission to the Protocol Committee. All submissions to the Protocol Committee, at any stage of review, are made through the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant. (Earlier reviews, including those by the vaccine developer, are arranged directly by the writing team.) Manuscripts and abstracts may be submitted in hard copy or in a commonly used, editable electronic format such as Microsoft Word. Submit manuscripts, abstracts, or questions to the Protocol Committee Administrative Assistant: The Protocol Committee Admin distributes draft publications for review, and tracks drafts as well as published products. For tracking purposes, authors must report the final disposition of publications to the Protocol Committee Admin. [must? Who checks to see if they are not??] Participant identification numbers Participant ID numbers from trials are not to be used in any publications. If ID numbers are needed, the SDMC will issue new ones. [WOW!!Loose cannons. Reprint distribution The publications coordinator distributes reprints of published material at the request of the corresponding author. The request must be in writing and accompanied by the number of copies to be distributed. Unless otherwise requested, distribution will be to all authors, DAIDS representatives, the vaccine developer, and the HVTN Core Operations Center. Additional distributions may be made as directed by the lead author. [and the lead author is truthful? HA!] Publicity and media Media inquiries and press releases should be referred to the NIAID Office of Communications Reporting and Public Response (OC/NIAID). The OC/NIAID and VCRB Program Officer should approve any press releases and responses to inquiries (t. 301-496-5717). Local media activity should be coordinated with the NIAID Office of Communications. [NIAID=*Organized medicine with vested interest!] -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net prodigy...comcast--copper.... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mark S Probert sticks both feet in his mouth AGAIN-- Number of Vaccinations before age six
"Mark Probert" wrote: [and is now once again a proven liar] http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...2f68379d5911c7 From: Mark Probert Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:27:50 GMT Local: Fri, Nov 24 2006 8:27 pm Jan Drew wrote: From: Mark Probert Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:54:28 GMT Local: Fri, Dec 1 2006 8:54 pm You just do not know when to quit. I will renew the UDP when I see fit. Not a moment sooner. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....857c2fd83b54e7 Dec 3 2006 I have been the peacemaker in this group. As best as I can recall, you have never been supportive of it. Your silence is quite telling. The recipients of my peace offerings have either out right rejected them, or mocked them. Neither have shown the slightest desire to have peace. I DO. Thus, the UDP: I'll be clear in this: Peace requires the cessation of hostilities on all sides. You have, in the past, made it perfectly clear that you will not abide by peace so long as I do not "confess" what you think is the truth. Simply put, I will return to the UDP with these rules: 1. I will not post to you or about you. 2. I will respond to topics of interest in any thread I so choose, deleting all references to you. It is beyond the powers of mortal man to delete what you say, simply because your cut and paste jobs are incomprehensible. However, I will do my best to avoid posting responses to your comments, errors may happen, since I am not perfect, and your cut and paste jobs are often incomprehensible. However, they are *error* and nothing more. 3. I expect nothing of you. If you want to continue to snipe at me, feel free to do so. It will only make you look like a rabid junk yard dog. 4, I will decide when to return to the UDP. I was a lot happier with it in place. It is as simple as that. UDP-renew http://groups.google.com/group/misc....8551b90afb3b92 Nov 29 2006 Jan Drew wrote: "Mark Probert" wrote in message news:583bh.9352$IW2.3268@trndny03... Eric Bohlman wrote: "pmoran" wrote in news:1164743505.300973.222040 @h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Mark, what gives? These are awful accusations and it smells of fakery . It should have been possible to check some of the facts, such as that the child care centre was closed down. Why were criminal charges not laid if these accusations were true? I don't think this should have been posted, even as a joke or to make a point, however well-deserved. Bolen and Ilena have amply demonstrated how lies can acquire a life of their own on Usenet. Can you withdraw it? I have to agree. In particular, the lack of a specific time-frame when the abuses were supposed to have occurred is pretty suspicious; it gratuitously increases the difficulty in verifying the allegations. Someone who had really experienced an injustice, rather than someone with a potentially malicious axe to grind, would want to do everything possible to make his allegations verifiable. "Your request has been sent to Google Groups support for review. You will be notified when the review has been completed. After reviewed, posts will typically be removed within 24 hours." From Google Groups. Poor Mark. Google groups are not investigators. Do go and look it up. GoogleGroups manages requests to remove. You just cannot help yourself. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2a33f2d83530f1 Nov 30 2006 Coleah wrote: I don't get it. Jan is trying to imply that I initiated the email from Jack Reid. I posted it in mha, not in all the groups she has crossposted this message to. Jan is, of course, wrong. Nothing she posted shows it came from me. The mere fact that there is a NYC address in the list is meaningless. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....294863e3f096e6 Nov 29 2006 Can you withdraw it? Already initiated a request to do so. Just to make my point, the gloves are off. That. what I thought. Because you know it was faked by you. Or--you got one of your buddies to sent it. I tried for days, weeks, months and years to end the war. All I received was this crap from you. Nothing was faked. You continued your harassment in spite of my efforts. NO ONE is claiming that I did not try, not even your altie buddies. You lost on that point a long time ago. Poor Mark fails again. Leave me alone. Do not post to or about me. Do not take this lightly. http://groups.google.com/group/misc....76941dfe867991 Nov 29 2006 Jan Drew wrote: "Mark Probert" wrote in message news:vfZah.18334$mM1.5367@trndny08... I received this email this morning. Since the sender used anonymous email, I have no way of verifying it or knowing whether it is true or not. I post the full header for reference. LOL! ---------begin quoted material-------- Delivered-To: Received: by 10.66.239.8 with SMTP id m8cs80233ugh; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr923548agc.1164730133350; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of designates 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com [65.39.178.61]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 3E378DA84A; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500 To: "Mark Probert" Cc: Subject: Jan Drew From: Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: m To: On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert wrote: On 11/28/06, wrote: Dear Mr. Probert: You do not know me, but I live in Indiana. I am writing to you, since you are being attacked by Jan Drew. I know you will understand. Years ago my parents placed me in a child care center run by Jan Drew. It was a nightmare. I was physically and verbally abused by her and other people there. When I did not immediately do what they wanted, I was punished. Sometimes I was made to stay in a dark closet, other times I was not allowed to eat or go to the bathroom. I soiled myself several times and was punished, again, for that. The worst part were the spankings with a big paddle They would make me take my pants down and hit my rear with this. Some people seemed to enjoy watching this. On several occasions, someone would touch me, you know where. They told me not to tell anyone, or they would report my parents for child abuse and have me taken from my home. I was scared to death this would happen and stayed silent. Finally, after years of this abuse, I told my parents what was happening, and they filed a complaint with the State of Indiana. The State investigated and closed her down. LOL! Fact: I sold the daycare center. Even to this day, I am still afraid of her, and what she can do to me. She is a mean, hurtful person who should never have been allowed to be near children. Jack LOL! This is complete untrue and made up by Mark Probert. Dear Jack: I am sorry to hear about what happened to you. Can I post your email to Usenet if I do not display your email address? Mark Probert Dear Mr. Probert: Yes, you can post this to Usenet, or send it to her ISP, or whatever else you want to do with it. Hushmail will protect my identity. Wonders of wonders. Send it, Markey. They need a good laugh. BTW, I have never received anything from my ISP, like you said. *You have now acknowledged receipt of a proper warning, as required by your ISP.* You misunderstood. My post was the proper warning. You acknowledged receiving it. Leave me alone. Do not post to or about me. She is a very bad person, and I still have nightmares from what she did to me. Good luck, and I hope you find peace. Jack Reid Mark Probert" wrote in message Nov 30 2006 However, I am the only one who has consistently offered peace. Both women have steadfastly refused. I, Jan Drew wrote: Here is his peace offering, and just one where he says no conditions. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...nt/msg/c74c400... I will, as of this posting, Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 4:20 PM EST, unconditionally cease and desist from posting to Ilena, about Ilena or in response to Ilena. I hope that you, who have been a supporter of hers, will now move and directly ask her to do the same thing. Further, if she ceases her actions towards me, I will render the posts in the Fan Club unreadable. If she removes any and all webpages regarding me and/or my family, the Fan Club will cease to exist. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s.../msg/441b7e9e3... That is real. I offered you and Ilena a mutual cease fire, no conditions, and you and she slapped the same condition on it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Number of Vaccinations before age six | Jan Drew | General | 9 | March 22nd 08 01:07 AM |
when did you first go it alone after number 2? | Anne Rogers | Pregnancy | 13 | June 24th 05 09:34 PM |
TTC number 2 | Anne Rogers | Pregnancy | 12 | September 5th 04 08:31 PM |
Breastfeeding number two | kereru | General | 12 | July 23rd 03 04:31 PM |