3 of 4 Authors in Medical Journals Have Conflicts of Interest

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...

I am not saying that biases among researchers can be eliminated.
But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction.

Policy ADVISORY committees, Roger - ADVISORY.

Well this is the how Roger goes about telling his lies. On the face of
them they are factually correct. They just fall apart when you closely
examine the entire premise.

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local school
boards or boardsof health. They are largely composed of elected
officials and generally have done no research and have no ties to
pharmaceutical companies. There is no potential for a conspiracy
theory there so the anti-vacs must look elswhere.

2) Moving down the chain we could look at what the elected officials
use to determine what will be required. They mostly look at the
"official" schedule that is approved every year by the AAP and AAFP.
Those bodies are composed of doctors but by and large not grant
getting researchers. Die hard anti-vac can try to claim that all docs
are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies (and some do) but there
is still not enough of a smoking gun to impress the casual observer so
most don't bother.

3) At the next step is where they hit pay dirt- the vaccine advosory
committees. When one puts together an advisory commitee most
reasonable people look for the most knowledgeable experts they can
find (as you say - why ask a virgin about sex). The purpose of the
committee is not to represent all the cultural values of the
population. That is what the elected officials and local governments
are for (see #1). The purpose of the committee is to provide a
recommendations based on the best currently available science. The
best people to give this kind of info are the ones currently doing and
writing about the science. Unfortunately, in this day and age to do
the science nearly always requires getting some funding from the
industry.

This last part makes good fodder for conspiracy theories but what they
don't tell you is that these "tainted" recommendations must then pass
through two layers of filtering which would likely detect flaws in the
science or culturally innappropriate actions. I wonder what they would
say of the advisory committees made similar omissions.

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
om...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...

I am not saying that biases among researchers can be eliminated.
But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction.

Policy ADVISORY committees, Roger - ADVISORY.

How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP *haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

Well this is the how Roger goes about telling his lies. On the face of
them they are factually correct. They just fall apart when you closely
examine the entire premise.

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local school
boards or boardsof health.

Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements aren't set at the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the state department
of health).

They are largely composed of elected
officials and generally have done no research and have no ties to
pharmaceutical companies. There is no potential for a conspiracy
theory there so the anti-vacs must look elswhere.

Setting vaccination policy varies from state to state. In states where
the (state)department of health doesn't directly establish policy, I
imagine public health officials more or less dictate their wishes to
various legislators, who then draft legislation to see that the proposed
measures (e.g., adding a new vaccine to the list of those required for
school entry) become law. (In Colorado), "between 1992 and 1994, the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gave the Colorado Department of Health
and the Governor's Office more than $850,000 in exchange for promoting
its policies [note: the RWJ Foundation is a huge proponent of
vaccination]." (http://i2i.org/article.aspx?ID=373)

[...]

"JG" wrote
How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP *haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

None, that I know of. A couple of times the CDC had to rescind
a recommendation because of evidence that the vaccine was
dangerous. (Eg, HBV with mercury, rotavirus.)

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local school
boards or boardsof health.
Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements aren't set at the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the state department
of health).

Yes, at the state level. CBI doesn't know what he is talking about.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
"JG" wrote
How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP *haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

None, that I know of. A couple of times the CDC had to rescind
a recommendation because of evidence that the vaccine was
dangerous. (Eg, HBV with mercury, rotavirus.)

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local school
boards or boardsof health.
Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements aren't set at
the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the state
department
of health).

Yes, at the state level. CBI doesn't know what he is talking about.

Hardly the first time. Too bad; the first link of his little chain is
broken. Guess he's happy foolin' some of the people at least some of
the time!

JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in
message
om...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in
message
...

I am not saying that biases among researchers can be
eliminated.
But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees
should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps
balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction.

Policy ADVISORY committees, Roger - ADVISORY.

How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP
*haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

The CDC doesn't make laws or mandate immunizations either. I
don't understand why you continue to insist on arguing
things you obviously don't undeerstand with those that do.

And to answer what I think was the gist of your question -
Prevnar is one.

It is currently a recommended vaccine according to the ACIP
recommended and AAP/AAFP approved schedule yet it is not
required by the school discticts I know of. Things may be
different somewhere. Since the school entry requirements are
set at a local level I am sure there are other expmaples
like Hep B in some systems, and Hep A vaccine in places
where it is in high prevalence.



Well this is the how Roger goes about telling his lies.
On the face
of them they are factually correct. They just fall apart
when you
closely examine the entire premise.

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by
local school
boards or boardsof health.

Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements
aren't set at the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the
state department
of health).

Maryland for one. Around here the requirements areset by the
Baltimore Dept of health. Even if what you say is true it
still doesn't matter. The requirements would still be being
set by a local government- nit the feds - and not by any
national organization - not the AAP, the ACIP, the CDC, or
any other. They still would be being set by elected
officials.



They are largely composed of elected
officials and generally have done no research and have no
ties to
pharmaceutical companies. There is no potential for a
conspiracy
theory there so the anti-vacs must look elswhere.

Setting vaccination policy varies from state to state. In
states
where the (state)department of health doesn't directly
establish
policy, I imagine public health officials more or less
dictate their
wishes to various legislators,......

The key words being, "I imagine." I'm really not interested
in arguing about what you imagine.


--
CBI, MD

JG wrote:
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in
message
...
"JG" wrote
How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the
ACIP *haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

None, that I know of. A couple of times the CDC had to
rescind
a recommendation because of evidence that the vaccine was
dangerous. (Eg, HBV with mercury, rotavirus.)

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by
local school
boards or boardsof health.
Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements
aren't set at
the *state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or
the state
department of health).

Yes, at the state level. CBI doesn't know what he is
talking about.

Hardly the first time. Too bad; the first link of his
little chain is
broken. Guess he's happy foolin' some of the people at
least some of
the time!

Umm - your claim is that the members of national vaccine
advisory committees set the policies. I say it is elected
officials in local governments Your rebuttal is to claim it
is a different local government?

Weak.

if you are even going to try to defend you position then
I'll take it as an admission of defeat.

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JG wrote:
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in
message
...
"JG" wrote

How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the
ACIP *haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

None, that I know of. A couple of times the CDC had to
rescind
a recommendation because of evidence that the vaccine was
dangerous. (Eg, HBV with mercury, rotavirus.)

1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by
local school
boards or boardsof health.
Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements
aren't set at
the *state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or
the state
department of health).

Yes, at the state level. CBI doesn't know what he is
talking about.

Hardly the first time. Too bad; the first link of his
little chain is
broken. Guess he's happy foolin' some of the people at
least some of
the time!

Umm - your claim is that the members of national vaccine
advisory committees set the policies.

Excuse me? *My* claim? Where? When? You're getting daffier with each
post, Chris! I'm fully aware (as stated in my post and copied by you,
above) that the ACIP advises (i.e., makes recommendations to) the CDC
and that CDC officials, in turn, then make recommendations to the
states.

I say it is elected
officials in local governments Your rebuttal is to claim it
is a different local government?

LOL. No, my claim is that vaccination policy is set at the STATE
level, i.e., by STATE officials, either elected (legislators) or
appointed/hired (health department personnel). Look, *local*
governments are county/city/town governments (and smaller units; e.g.,
fire districts, school districts, water districts. sanitation districts,
soil districts).

Weak.

Ah, Chris! Stop embarrassing yourself!

if you are even going to try to defend you position then
I'll take it as an admission of defeat.

Get help. Learning to think logically wouldn't hurt, either.

"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...
JG wrote:
"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in
message
om...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in
message
...

I am not saying that biases among researchers can be
eliminated.
But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees
should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps
balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction.

Policy ADVISORY committees, Roger - ADVISORY.

How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP
*haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

The CDC doesn't make laws or mandate immunizations either.

Who said they do? Look, the ACIP makes recommendations to (i.e.,
ADVISES) CDC officials, who then issue recommendations to the states.

I
don't understand why you continue to insist on arguing
things you obviously don't undeerstand with those that do.

Bwahahaha...snort...bwahahahaha!

And to answer what I think was the gist of your question -
Prevnar is one.

No, Chris; the CDC, under the advice/recommendation of the ACIP, added
Prevnar to its list of recommended vaccines. (See
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...nizationa1.htm for
the current "recommended vaccinations" schedule.) My question was
simply whether the CDC has ever NOT recommended a vaccine after being
advised to do so by the ACIP.

It is currently a recommended vaccine according to the ACIP
recommended and AAP/AAFP approved schedule yet it is not
required by the school discticts I know of.

What does this have to do with *anything* being discussed? (And for
heaven's sake, PCV [Prevnar] isn't even recommended for kids /= 5!
Your lack of knowledge is scaring me, Chris! ...Are you *sure* you're a
pediatrician?)

Things may be
different somewhere. Since the school entry requirements are
set at a local level I am sure there are other expmaples
like Hep B in some systems, and Hep A vaccine in places
where it is in high prevalence.

I'm sure if you do a bit of research you'll find that MD's (school)
vaccination requirements are set by the STATE government and that your
local district is simply informing district parents about them.

Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements
aren't set at the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the
state department
of health).

Maryland for one. Around here the requirements areset by the
Baltimore Dept of health.

No, Chris; they're set by the state. You might want to read the article
at http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/publ-rel/html/pr081803.htm and the
information at
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/ms...l/22immun.html
before you make a further fool of yourself.

Even if what you say is true it
still doesn't matter. The requirements would still be being
set by a local government- nit the feds - and not by any
national organization - not the AAP, the ACIP, the CDC, or
any other.

CHRIS! WAKE UP!!! They're set by STATE government! State government
is NOT local government!

They still would be being set by elected
officials.

Not in Maryland! (Go to the second link I provided.)

They are largely composed of elected
officials and generally have done no research and have no
ties to
pharmaceutical companies. There is no potential for a
conspiracy
theory there so the anti-vacs must look elswhere.

Setting vaccination policy varies from state to state. In
states
where the (state)department of health doesn't directly
establish
policy, I imagine public health officials more or less
dictate their
wishes to various legislators,......

The key words being, "I imagine." I'm really not interested
in arguing about what you imagine.

Not surprising. Your own imagination seems to keep you busy enough!

"JG" wrote
Umm - your claim is that the members of national vaccine
advisory committees set the policies.
Excuse me? *My* claim? Where? When? You're getting daffier with each
post, Chris! I'm fully aware (as stated in my post and copied by you,
above) that the ACIP advises (i.e., makes recommendations to) the CDC
and that CDC officials, in turn, then make recommendations to the
states.

I might have said that the CDC/ACIP sets vaccine policy. That is
quite correct, and you can find the policies on www.cdc.gov.
CBI got those policies mixed up with state law.

"JG" wrote in message ...
"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...


How many vaccination recommendations put forth by the ACIP
*haven't*
been approved by the CDC?

The CDC doesn't make laws or mandate immunizations either.

Who said they do? Look, the ACIP makes recommendations to (i.e.,
ADVISES) CDC officials, who then issue recommendations to the states.

It still doesn't change the point. The CDC still does not make the
school policies and their recommendations are not universally follwed
by the local officials who do. So you can play games with trying to
confuse the issues of who is advising who but the point remains that
the "biased" researchers only give advise and that advise is not
always followed.


I
don't understand why you continue to insist on arguing
things you obviously don't undeerstand with those that do.

Bwahahaha...snort...bwahahahaha!

OK - I'll admit that it is possible you are distorting the issues on
purpose.



And to answer what I think was the gist of your question -
Prevnar is one.

No, Chris; the CDC, under the advice/recommendation of the ACIP, added
Prevnar to its list of recommended vaccines. (See
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...nizationa1.htm for
the current "recommended vaccinations" schedule.) My question was
simply whether the CDC has ever NOT recommended a vaccine after being
advised to do so by the ACIP.

But the topic at hand is whether the "biased" researchers who make
recommendations set policy. The fact is that theyu don't. I certainly
can understand why you seem to prefer to discuss the relationship
between the CDC and ACIP. It supports your conspiracy theories better.



It is currently a recommended vaccine according to the ACIP
recommended and AAP/AAFP approved schedule yet it is not
required by the school discticts I know of.

What does this have to do with *anything* being discussed?

Everything.


(And for
heaven's sake, PCV [Prevnar] isn't even recommended for kids /= 5!
Your lack of knowledge is scaring me, Chris! ...Are you *sure* you're a
pediatrician?)

When did I ever say it was?



Things may be
different somewhere. Since the school entry requirements are
set at a local level I am sure there are other expmaples
like Hep B in some systems, and Hep A vaccine in places
where it is in high prevalence.

I'm sure if you do a bit of research you'll find that MD's (school)
vaccination requirements are set by the STATE government and that your
local district is simply informing district parents about them.

It is your claim. You prove that the policies of every district are
set by the state. After all, the number of states is finite..... (fair
is fair - if you can make this type if rediculous demand so can I.)



Name a state where (school) vaccination requirements
aren't set at the
*state* level (i.e., either by the legislature or the
state department
of health).

Maryland for one. Around here the requirements areset by the
Baltimore Dept of health.

No, Chris; they're set by the state. You might want to read the article
at http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/publ-rel/html/pr081803.htm and the
information at
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/ms...l/22immun.html
before you make a further fool of yourself.


Fine. It still is being set by local (not national) politicians and
not any government advisory committee or paid reseachers (which is the
whole point).

Again, we started witht he claim that these "tainted" researchers are
setting policy. Now that this has been blown out of the water you are
just trying shift the discussion of who is advising who.



Even if what you say is true it
still doesn't matter. The requirements would still be being
set by a local government- nit the feds - and not by any
national organization - not the AAP, the ACIP, the CDC, or
any other.

CHRIS! WAKE UP!!! They're set by STATE government! State government
is NOT local government!

Oh, geeze. "Local" is a relative term. We are distinguishing federal
from otherwise. Face it - when you have to start parsing terms this
finely (and incorrectly) your argument is shot.



They still would be being set by elected
officials.

Not in Maryland! (Go to the second link I provided.)

All this link says is that there is a state (not federal) advisory
committee that "reports to the governor." Last I checked the Governor
was an elected offical. Any action by a committee he, or some other
elected official, appoints is still under the auspices of an elected
official.



The key words being, "I imagine." I'm really not interested
in arguing about what you imagine.

Not surprising. Your own imagination seems to keep you busy enough!

At least it has some grouding in reality.

--
CBI, MD