We survived WITHOUT safety edicts

"PF Riley" wrote
You "answered" by making up an irrelevant analogy, and when I pointed
this out, you said (2/6/01):
1. The official vaccine recommendations and schedules come from paid
industry lobbyists and contractors.
2. The data supporting those decisions is withheld from the public.
3. Those decisions are often demonstrably bad.
IMO, this situation is unacceptable. It is recipe for bad medical
decisions. That's why I suggest that patients/parents get their
own info and make their decisions.

Glad to see you are reading my messages.

...
(This is where you claim that the company knew about the risk.)

The company did know -- it even printed a caution on the physician's
package insert.

posed now by JG: "Why, then, would they (owners) intentionally do
anything that would lessen potential profits, let alone leave them
open to trouble (e.g., enormous judgments against them)?"

If the company had it to do all over again, and knew what it the
public knows now, it would not have pushed the rotavirus vaccine
so aggressively. Businesses do often makes mistakes in their
business decisions. I am sure the company thought that it was
maximizing its profits when it pushed for the vaccine, when it
made those payments to those on FDA and CDC committees,
and when it got the vaccine put on the official schedule for all
kids.

We would have a better system if the drug companies had to
fully disclose the test data, if the companies had to sell their drugs
on the merits, and if we have independent people on those
gubmnt committees.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff Utz" wrote
That's not saying much g; poor, stupid immigrants have access to all
sorts of services--health, education--that many longtime residents are
denied. Ask Roger what's happened in/to California!
I disagree. While anyone can get treated at an emergency department,
immigrants and other poor people get poor medical care. Outstanding
treatment in an emergency department is poor primary care.

So you think that they get great treatment when they are sick, so what
is so poor about it?

No. I said that "outstanding treatment in an emergency department is poor
primary care." I did not say that I think they get outstanding treatment in
the emergency department. An emergency department is a terrible place for
primary care. Immunizations are missed. Chronic conditions are poorly
treated. Developmental issues are not dealt with. And the continuity of
care is nearly non-existant.

Are they missing the lectures about sleeping
positions, smoke detectors, and guns?

Yes.

And why do immigrants not deserve good health care and education?

I think that you deserve a good education. Go get one!

Thanks for the personal attack. But, I am going back to school to improve my
already excellent education.

Jeff

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"PF Riley" wrote
I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. ...
we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
wasting, not mine!")

I don't like paying for Medicaid freeloaders either.

I am not convinced that all people on Medicaid are freeloaders. Certainly
some are. And the kids on Medicaid and many of the older Americans deserve a
break. At least as much of a break as I got.

I don't agree with
the laws that say that illegal aliens can get free ER treatment, while
I have to pay big bucks for medical services.

You, too, can get free ER treatment.

No, it is not fair, or
cost-effective, or efficient use of resources, or good policy. But the
upshot is that these poor people are getting excellent medical care
compared to what they'd be getting if they were living back in Mexico
and paying out of their own pockets.

And these people are working their butts off for low wages and no insurance.
I guess it works out fairly in the end. Except, even though their care is
better than in Mexico, it still is poor care.

Jeff

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:43:53 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote
I remember a Spanish-speaking family came in to the ER where I trained
for an asthma exacerbation. They, as usual, had run out of the
medications the son had been prescribed at his previous ER visit. ...
we have Medicaid!" (In other words, "Screw you -- it's your money I'm
wasting, not mine!")

I don't like paying for Medicaid freeloaders either. I don't agree with
the laws that say that illegal aliens can get free ER treatment, while
I have to pay big bucks for medical services. No, it is not fair, or
cost-effective, or efficient use of resources, or good policy. But the
upshot is that these poor people are getting excellent medical care
compared to what they'd be getting if they were living back in Mexico
and paying out of their own pockets.

So are we to assume, now, that you're changing your opinion from
"Immigrants get great medical care at the ER" to "Immigrants get
better medical care at U.S. ER's than they would at Mexican ER's?" If
so, then, what's your point?

PF

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:22:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

We would have a better system if the drug companies had to
fully disclose the test data, if the companies had to sell their drugs
on the merits, and if we have independent people on those
gubmnt committees.

Aha, so you're calling for MORE government regulation to fix the
"problem," then? Make MORE rules, right? Pass a regulatory law that
says the drug companies must release all of its raw data from safety
studies?

JG, what do you think? Would the Rotashield fiasco have been better
avoided by completely eliminating all government regulation and
letting Wyeth rely on its own honesty and integrity snicker instead
of answering to government committees because, after all, they would
"do the right thing" whether there were rules or not if profits are on
the line, correct? After all, no businessman would try to pull a fast
one on his customers to make an extra buck, right? Or would it have
been better, as Roger suggests, to have had more regulations so that
they wouldn't have been able to slip that intussusception issue past
us?

JG and Roger, why don't the two of you work this out amongst
yourselves and get back to us if/when you think you have a solution.

PF

PF Riley wrote:

So are we to assume, now, that you're changing your opinion from
"Immigrants get great medical care at the ER" to "Immigrants get
better medical care at U.S. ER's than they would at Mexican ER's?" If
so, then, what's your point?

I don't know about *his* point, but my point was that immigrants get
better access to medical care in the U.S. in 2003 than they did in 1903
and that difference can be a matter of life or death. In other words,
all else being equal, immigrant children died in 1903 that wouldn't die in
2003 purely based on access to a doctor due to having Medicaid.

I believe I mentioned that my great-grandfather was positive his children
died because of racism - the doctor wouldn't come to his house at a time
when doctors WENT to the homes of families with three sick children. I
believe racism still exists, but at least now the doctor can feel
confident that (s)he will get paid and so they don't have to actually be
altruistic in addition to non-racist.

By the way, I think it is a real struggle to imagine a time when doctors
didn't serve Jewish homes. But I believe it is true. I believe hardships
and deprivations exist that most affluent middle class people don't even
imagine. It's just not a world into which we have any access to see.

Wendy

Jeff Utz wrote:

The difference in speed kills. Drivers are much more likely to get in a
wreck if the cars around them are going a different speed than they are. If
everyone wear capable of safely driving 85 and drove 85, the roads would be
safer than with some people driving 75, some 65 and some 45, as it is now.

Correct, to a point. There are those idiots who would never stop weaving
regardless of speed. It is not the different speeds that cause
problems, but, the need of some people to go around the slower cars.

Your Help is Desperatly Needed to Stop Lead Poisoning in Children!
Hello MY Name is Shelly,
I'm writing this message in the hope of getting signatures/names for my crusade
against Lead Poisoning in Children. My 4 Children ( Brandon 5, Marissah 4,
Thomas 22 mos., and Jacob 6 mos.) were tested positive for lead poisoning! upon
testing of my appartment, we found that there were high levels of Lead!....
Each night as i layed my children down to sleep in their beds,i would watch
them kneel at the side of their beds to say their prayers,I would kiss them
goodnightand tuck them saftly into their beds so i thought.
Little did i Know that their rooms were where i left them each night to sleep
was loaded with lead! The one place i thought they were safe and sound,
Poisoned them!
My babies, My Sweet, innocent babies...I called everywhere i could think to
solve this matter, i even called my local Health Department. They informed me
that unless my childrens lead levels reach the dangerous level of 20 or above
they could not help me! i was so upset, i felt that no one cared about the
safty of my children but myself!
SO I made a vow to my children that i would fight the lagal system to have the
lead levels reduced.... Knowing that if i waited till their lead levels reached
20 they would already be suffering for the lead nad could experience learning
disabilities, Brain Damage and even Death in some cases!
I need to help my children and other Children!
and your help can put us one step closer to doing this!
below in an email address you can respond to, simply drop me a quick email and
tell me to put your name on the list!
Please also provide your email, the city and State you live in.
by signing this petition we can get these lead levels lowered! PLEASE WE REALLY
NEED YOUR HELP!
Signed,
Shelly In New York