More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Jeff Utz" wrote
Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
specialty
groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
rounded to me.

No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
stooges.

Well demonstrate to us that they are "drug company stooges."

I'd like to see:

1 member nominated by AAPS.
1 member nominated by NVIC.
1 member who is a non-medical scientist with expertise in
policy and risk analysis.
Several members who are demonstrably untainted by drug money.
At least 1 member who is appropriately skeptical of confidential
drug company data.
1 member representing the public at large.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Jeff Utz" wrote
Really? Could it be that there is more than on maker of certain
vaccines,
...

Sure.

Who makes the AAP endorsements? The editor of the Journal? Or a
committee
of
pediatricians who are experts on infectious disease?

Actually, the AAP just rubberstamps the CDC/ACIP schedule.

Really? Why, in the recent past, have there been differences between AAP
recommendations the ACIP schedule (I think you pointed them out on your
"FAQs" in the past)? The recommendations are made the Committee on
Infectious Diseases of the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. It makes great
sense for the AAP to adopt the same schedule as the ACIP if the ACIP is a
good schedule, even if it does not agree to all the details. I beleive that
is why the ACIP and AAP schedules are so close.

It is in the best interest of the kids and their parents to have one clear
schedule, rather than competing schedules from the AAFP, AAP and ACIP.
However, the AAP does not rubber stamp the schedule, but reviews the
schedule and will make other recommendations if it sees fit.

This is the original message to which Roger is posting is below. Note
how
he
convinently snipped off his prior claim that drug makers don't advertise
vaccines.

Huhh? Your quotes do not back you up.

Nice weasle move. I see you have the moves down pat. In one place you say
they don't have to place a lot of ads, then you say they place ads to pay
off the AAP, but you never answered the question why they place ads in other
journals. (In fact, you deleted the question without indicating that fact.)

All the best,

Jeff

Mark said:
Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for
the
latter, but not for vaccines?

I said (with typos corrected):
The drug companies don't need to place a lot of ads for their
vaccines,
because they lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine. Why advertise
if people don't have a choice anyway?

Neither of us said that there are no vaccine ads anywhere at all.

"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message ...
In , Beth wrote:

First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. It's possible that such
experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
My take on it, especially after having read a few threads on
vaccination, is that anyone who doesn't support the current CDC policy
wholeheartly is considered to be anti-vaccination. If the same
attitude is present within the administration of the CDC, I would
guess that such a person would not be considered for inclusion on the
committee.

The problem with all of this "vested interest" smokescreen is

Excuse me, this isn't a smokescreen, this a real concern of mine. And
it doesn't mean that I think that

that it starts from the premise that *any* connection to *any*
pharmaceutical corporation at any time automatically makes
the person in question a mindless slave to *all* pharmaceutical
corporations for all time.

It means that I have concerns about how much such influence affects
the decision making process. That's not a) minor or b) unreasonable.
In fact, that's the reason that people in public policy making
positions are required to file conflict of interest statements. So
that others can judge for themselves what the extent of the influence
is likely to be, both for the individuals involved and for the
committee as a whole.

When valid reasonable concerns along those lines are raised, it
doesn't help your position to set up a straw man, as you did above
with the starting premise you attribute to my concerns, and then
dismiss the concerns as being equivalent to that straw man.

Even were the "influence" supposition correct, the companies
involved are more often bitter rivals than allies.

Rivals within a single industry often have an mutual interest in what
policies are set regarding their industry. It doesn't preclude their
working together to try and achieve something that will be to their
mutual benefit, even if it is detrimental to society as a whole.
That's why cartels occur and why they are illegal.

Beth

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote in message . ..
(Beth) wrote:


No, but I expect the committee as a whole to be unbiased when making
decisions that affect the public at large. If one or two people have
a conflict of interest, the committee is likely large enough that such
bias won't make a large difference in their procedings. If everyone
on the committee has a conflict of interest regarding the vaccine
industry, that doesn't bode well for unbiased recommendations.

Beth -
The number of persons involved in vaccine research - the
experts you WANT on the committee - is small.

Who says that we only WANT vaccine researchers on the committee? One
doesn't have to have done vaccine research in order to study it and
help formulate public policy, though a background in public health
issues would certainly be a desireable and reasonable qualification.
And Roger's suggestion that the committee have at least one member who
is an expert in policy and risk analysis is well taken.

The number of
institutions and corporations doing vaccine research and
production is also small. The available talent pool is so small
that it is impossible to find any experts that have not, at one
time or another, worked with or for a manufacturer.

Sorry, the only way to make that argument work is to define an
*expert* eligible to serve on the committee so narrowly that you end
up excluding other points of view. The end result: Bias in the
decision making process on the pro-vaccination side. That's why I
find it disturbing that apparently the CDC is doing exactly that.

Beth

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote in message . ..
(Beth) wrote:

First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
way? Would 100,000?

Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!! That's not good.

It's possible that such
experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.

Given that most people in an industry tend to invest in that
industry, that many corporations give stocks as bonuses, that
they hire experts in the industry as advisors, and that they fund
major university research in their field (I've never seen Intel
funding vaccine research, nor Merck funding semiconductor
research) ... who is left?

People who aren't researchers. People with expertise in the field of
public health who study the research that others have done but don't
have the same biases as those who fund and perform the research.
Different people can examine the same results and form different
conclusions, particularly if they have different backgrounds and
values. Such diversity allows a committee to be more representative
of the public at large.

Beth

"Tsu Dho Nimh" wrote
First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
way? Would 100,000?

The US gubmnt has conflict of interest regulations that make such
definitions. I don't have them handy. They have to be waived for
the vaccine committees, because the members do not comply.

And the violations are not just for having 100 shares of stock. Some
of the members have received 6-figure payments as unrestricted
"educational" grants for the purpose of promoting vaccines.
I think that the system is corrupt.

In article ,
Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Jeff Utz" wrote
Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
specialty
groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
rounded to me.

No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
stooges. I'd like to see:

1 member nominated by AAPS.
1 member nominated by NVIC.
1 member who is a non-medical scientist with expertise in
policy and risk analysis.
Several members who are demonstrably untainted by drug money.
At least 1 member who is appropriately skeptical of confidential
drug company data.
1 member representing the public at large.

Speaking of conflicts of interest, Roger, how come you didn't tell us
that AAPS had published an article by you?

-- 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)

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Rog - You made the accusation and so the burden of proof rests
with
you.

Gee, this sounds familiar.

The silence that follows sounds familiar as well.

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...

Do you or David Wright ever give evidence to support what
you say? The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,
and they support voluntary vaccination. See the above web
site for details.

Can you cite any examples of AAPS articles, from t he journal or website,
that is predominantly supportive of childhood vaccination?

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Peter Bowditch" wrote
And wasn't Roger the mathematician who helped the AAPS prove that when
you compare 1/5,000 with 3/10,000 the answer is 1/30 because 1/5,000
(the measured value) is really 1/100,000?

This appears to be an obscure reference to the analysis that
caused the rotavirus vaccine to be withdrawn from the market.
Maybe you were not persuaded, but the FDA, CDC, and the
vaccine maker were all persuaded, and the rotavirus vaccine
is still off the market

As a result of the withdrawal we are now failing to prevent 40,000
hospitalizations and 16 deaths per year (vs the 0-1 deaths per year the
vaccine would have caused).

Strong work, Rog. You're a real child advocate.

The fact is that the vaccine saved lives and reduced morbidity but would
have been a legal nightmare for the company because they would have been
blamed for twice the number of intussusceptions than it caused. It was not
the FDA or the CDC that caused its removal but rather the ABA.

--
CBI, MD