More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

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

Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.

I don't think most members are anti-vaccination per se, they're simply
opposed to forced (mandatory) vaccination (actually *any* medical
procedure/treatment that's coerced). See, for example, "AAPS Opposes
Vaccine Mandates"; go to http://www.aapsonline.org/ and scroll down the
list on the left-hand side of the page.

Rich Shewmaker wrote:
--

"David Wright" wrote in message
...

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.

-- 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)



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.

--

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
.net...
Rich Shewmaker wrote:
--

"David Wright" wrote in message
...

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.

-- 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)



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.




Note: Just ONE pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, spent more on ADVERTISING
Vioxx than the total gross sales of vaccines by ALL of the pharmaceutical
industry worldwide. Where's the vested interest?

--Rich

"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. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

Jeff

Mark Probert wrote in message v.net...
JG wrote:



Read the article at http://www.all.org/activism/pox02.htm.

Now you do.

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

What evidence do you have for this? The information given is
verifiable. Now that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but I tend
to put more crediance in statements that can be shown to be true or
false. Can you cite a source that discredits what was said in the
article?

Beth

"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.

"Rich Shewmaker" wrote in message
...

Note: Just ONE pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, spent more on
ADVERTISING
Vioxx than the total gross sales of vaccines by ALL of the
pharmaceutical
industry worldwide. Where's the vested interest?

Bwahahaha! You moron. (1) Vioxx is manufactured/marketed by MERCK
(though if Pfizer wanted to pick up the advertising tab, I doubt Merck
would complain!). (2) The amount spent on direct-to-consumer Vioxx
advertising is widely reported (do a Google search--you can do THAT,
can't you?) to have been $160.8M (2000); the market for "pediatric"
vaccines ALONE (excluding hepatitis and flu vaccines, for example) was
$2.5B (2001; the market's growing 5-7% each year).
[www.chiron.com/vaccinesoverview.html]

"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.

Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

"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? 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.

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.

Beth

"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.

Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

Big deal.

Jeff