More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

(David Wright) wrote in message m...
In article ,
Beth wrote:
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"David Wright" wrote
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.

Yes. Sorry about the typo.


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.

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.

Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
them personally.

Beth

Roger Schlafly wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote

Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
latter, but not for vaccines?
Seems to make perfect sense.
I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.


The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads for their vaccines,
because the lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine.

The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads? Most curious. I have
not seen them. Perhaps I should look in Good Housekeeping.

Why advertise
if people don't have a choice anyway? All they have to do is to pay
off a few people on some gubmnt committees.

There ya go..an unproven allegations, which you are a recognized expert
in making.

The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
profitable, not less.


Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.

BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.

David Wright wrote:

In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:

Rich Shewmaker wrote:

--

"David Wright" wrote in message
. com...


In article ,
Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:


(David Wright) wrote:


The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.

Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
cough?

And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.


Besides, look at the dosing schedule. A vaccine is given at a rate of one
dose every five years at the most. Is this a picture of a profitable
product? Pharmaceutical companies make their big profits on meds like
NSAIDS, and antidepressants, and drugs for GERD and hypertension.


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

Seems to make perfect sense.

I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.


Yeah, they talk about the total worldwide spending on vaccines, which
I seem to recall is in the vicinity of $6 billion. That's a fair
chunk of change, but it's not exactly all profit, it's split across a
number of companies, and it's pretty pale stuff compared to a really
hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
vaccines.

Good point. Contained within the $6B are vaccines provided to counties
which have no way of paying for them.

I will also note in passing that making vitamins is profitable too.
Unlike vaccines, I don't recall any large drugmakers getting out of
the vitamin biz.

This is a point I regularly bring up. Who needs R&D costs wrt vitamins?
Find a clever name, make a pretty pill, and, voila! off to market!

I used to annoy the Phyto-bears salescritters with asking them if they
had ever heard of Rita-bears? These guys sell a pill for vitamins to
kids who should be getting their nutrition from a balanced diet. They
are addicting kids to popping a pill instead of learning good nutrition.

Gymmie Bob wrote:

Ever see a polio ward in Europe where they never had a vaccination
programme?

I didn't think so.

One mo

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.html

Note the picture.

David Wright wrote:


The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,


There is no way to know this.

IIRC, Andy is their counsel.

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...

"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.

Define "does not provide." Do you mean doesn't have available on its
Web site, or won't divulge the numbers to someone who inquires (politely
and literately)?

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
et...
David Wright wrote:

The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,

There is no way to know this.

IIRC, Andy is their counsel.

Aren't they fortunate!

"Beth" wrote
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.
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-existent.

Yes, I don't believe it either. There are 1000s of excellent
scientists and others who would make excellent choices.

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.

That's right. The committees are not chosen to represent the public.
They are chosen to rubber-stamp official policy. They even take
nominations from drug companies!

Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
them personally.

They should all be unbiased. Most of the decisions are policy
decisions, so non-experts and other points of view should be
represented. But they don't want that -- they just want to promote
vaccines.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
et...
Roger Schlafly wrote:

The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
profitable, not less.

Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.

BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.

Wake up, Mark; surely you've seen ads (national TV and "mainstream"
magazines) for Flintstone, Bugs Bunny, Centrum (a Wyeth/Lederle product,
none of which will *ever* cross my threshold), and One A Day (Bayer)
vitamins (hmmm...just how many different formulations *do* the latter
two currently manufacture?--talk about market segregation!), as well as
ads (local) for chiropractors (a bunch around here are currently
pitching both "back to school" exams and free initial "consultations").
Pick up any "natural health" magazine (our local health food stores have
complimentary copies of "Delicious Living") and check out the ads for
various herbal supplements, THEN try claiming that "there is no
competition"!

"David Wright" wrote
hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
vaccines.

So you are backing off your argument, and now claiming that
vaccines are not the most profitable drugs ever invented. You
are probably correct. Vaccines are extremely lucrative and
profitable, but not the most profitable drugs ever invented.