More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:09:47 -0400, "CBI" wrote:

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
news

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

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

Gee, this sounds familiar.

PF

"Beth" wrote in message
om...
"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

All the best,

Jeff

Beth

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"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. Why advertise
if people don't have a choice anyway?

Then why are there a lot of ads in journals like Pedaitrics for vaccines?

All they have to do is to pay
off a few people on some gubmnt committees.

True. What evidence do you have that they have actually done this?

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

Really? But they do advertise. Maybe not as much as for other drugs, but
they do advertise.

Jeff

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"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? The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,
and they support voluntary vaccination. See the above web
site for details.

What details? How many physicians are members? How many
non-physicians? You
made the claim that it is "almost entirely physicians." Back it up.

Why don't YOU back up YOUR claim that "Many, perhaps most, of its
members are not health practioners"? Your statement came first, after
all.

Go to the website. Anyone can join.

Jeff

"JG" wrote in message
...
"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.

Jeff

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

I didn't think so.

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
(...)

Ever see a polio ward?

No. Thanks to vaccines.

Jeff

JG wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
.net...


I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point,

but

repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines

are.

Certain vaccines, *relative to other pharmaceutical products*,
undoubtedly do have a "low" profit margin. (Don't forget, however, that
manufacturers, thanks to state mandates, have 95% of the market using
their vaccines; a relatively low profit-per-dose adds up.) No company
is going to manufacture an unprofitable product unless somehow forced to
do so. Now, if you wish to claim that the gubmnt (by far the largest
purchaser of vaccines, btw) is forcing vaccine manufacturers to continue
producing supposedly unprofitable vaccines (perhaps the manufacturers,
as compensation, are getting regulatory breaks on other
products/issues?), prove it.

Firstly, I am not claiming that vaccines are not profitable. Obviously,
they are, and the ones that are not, are no longer made (Lymrix).

However, the pitch, the blather of the anti-vacs would make one thing
that these companies are raking it in hand over fist, and that vaccines
are massive money makers.

With the limited few time at most use, I do not see that happening.

The NSAIDS, anti-depressants, etc. are long term treatments and are the
subject of much advertising, etc. The distinction is logical, and telling.

Beth wrote:

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message ...

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
.net...

"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.

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.

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.

I suggest that the claims have to be proven. If you read some of the
other letters on the AAPS site, you will see that.



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.

I read their site again, tonight. They certainly do not have very much
pro-vaccination material. In fact, it appears that the anti-vac is at
leat 10-1 over the pro vac.

JG wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
.net...

AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any information.


Yeah, according to those who disagree with them! Since when does "might
(numbers) make right," Mark?

Can you point out where I claimed that might made right? No, of course
you cannot,as I did not say it.

I said that AAPS and Orient are not reliable sources of information.

Do you think the public should vote on how
much money (what percent of tax dollars) out of the total appropriated
for education should go towards special education (for kids with, say,
CP or ADHD)?

/sarcasdm mode on/
I wonder why you selected those conditions?
/sarcasm mode off/

BTW, many eminent physicians, including Rep. Ron Paul
(TX), are AAPS members.

There are members of Congress who belong to segretated organizations.
IOW so what.

At any rate, Dr. Orient isn't the source of the information regarding
vaccine manufacturers' lobbying of state legislators; Dr. Severyn is.
Care to opine on *her* credibilitiy? (Let me guess; she's an ignorant
twit intent on murdering infants, ergo anything and everything to which
she subscribes is hogwash, right? g)

You are a bad guesser.

The article points out that State health Departments, reputable
medical
institutions, and the CDC advocate for vaccination requirements.


Gee, imagine a prominent critic of routine mass vaccination including
that in an article! What *was* she thinking???

She wasn't.

And, they should. They know what the diseases do.


Ever see a polio ward?


Not that I can recall. My parents did their best to keep me out of
hospitals and mostly succeeded; I do remember going to a hospital
(Walter Reed? ...we were living just outside D.C. at the time) for a
gamma globulin injection when my brother came down with measles,
however. (I still came down with 'em.g) I did have a very good
friend who wore a clunky leg brace, though.

I thought so. You donot have personal edxperience. Thus, using jan's
rules, you do not have a valid opinion.