If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
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) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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 |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HALF OF KIDS IN FOSTER CARE NEEDLESSLY | Malev | General | 0 | December 12th 03 03:53 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |