More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

JG wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
et...

Roger Schlafly wrote:


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


Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.


BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.


Wake up, Mark; surely you've seen ads (national TV and "mainstream"
magazines) for Flintstone, Bugs Bunny, Centrum (a Wyeth/Lederle product,
none of which will *ever* cross my threshold), and One A Day (Bayer)
vitamins (hmmm...just how many different formulations *do* the latter
two currently manufacture?--talk about market segregation!), as well as
ads (local) for chiropractors (a bunch around here are currently
pitching both "back to school" exams and free initial "consultations").
Pick up any "natural health" magazine (our local health food stores have
complimentary copies of "Delicious Living") and check out the ads for
various herbal supplements, THEN try claiming that "there is no
competition"!

I was unclear. For vaccines, there is no competition.

As for unnecessary vitamins, there is.

JG wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
et...

David Wright wrote:


The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,


There is no way to know this.


IIRC, Andy is their counsel.


Aren't they fortunate!

I do not know how good an attoney he is.

However, it does lend credence to the claim they are anti-vac.

I emailed the asking how many members they have and what
percentage are MDs and DOs.

No answer.

I was unable to find membership numbers on the site.

Jeff

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Jeff Utz" wrote
But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
members, or some similar term.
Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on full or
any
other members.

If you don't have any numbers, then where is your evidence that
the members are not health practitioners. What do you think
that they are? Why would 1000s of non-health-practitioners
be joining an organizations of physicians?

You badger me for evidence for something you know to be
probably true anyway, and then you make these completely
silly and false statements.


Roger wrote: "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." (Message-ID:
) .

So provide evidence it is "almost entirely physicians." All we know for
certain is that the organization does not provide membership numbers and
invites non-professionals to join.

Jeff

I see you improved your FAQ.

I still wonder who actually asks you these questions.

I like how carefully you worded the question about who nominates members of
the ACIP. You said the vaccine makers and others. Interestingly, the people
who prepared the recommendations for the Small Pox vaccine and the Influenza
vaccine were all employees of the CDC.

Of the members of the committee in Feb. 2003, about 11 are MDs at
universities and state health departments + one member who was not an MD.

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.

Now, your suggestion that they were nominated by the drug makers is rather
misleading, at best. It appears most are representives of either physicians
groups, the CDC or health departments, with some representation from
insurance cos. and drug companies (which is reasonable, after all, they pay
for and make the stuff).

Can you show how your statement is not misleading? I mean, can you show that
the drug companies nominate a lot of members? And the CDC takes the
nominations seriously (or that a large proportion of the nominees become
members)?

Jeff

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

Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
them personally.

They should all be unbiased. Most of the decisions are policy
decisions, so non-experts and other points of view should be
represented. But they don't want that -- they just want to promote
vaccines.

Well, realistically, I don't think it's possible to assemble a
completely unbiased group of experts about anything. It is possible
to be aware of obvious sources of bias - which is why things like
"conflict of interest" disclosures are routine in our society - and
work to minimize the impact such biases will have in making decisions.

When I read that ALL the committee members have filed "conflict of
interest" statements, that the content of those statements will not be
released to the general public, and that accurate committee meeting
minutes were non-existant for most of the lifespan of the committee
and only recently begun being provided under duress...well, all those
things combine to set off a red flag for me.

The combination of those things tell me that this committee is trying
hard to prevent others from scrutinizing their work. Understandable,
no one likes their work scrutinized, but its part and parcel of being
on a committee that gets to set public policy. That's why we have open
meeting laws and require conflict of interest statements to be on
file. Not allowing the public access to such documentation seems very
suspicious to me. I begin to wonder, what are they hiding?

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Jeff Utz" wrote
Then why are there a lot of ads in journals like Pedaitrics for
vaccines?

That is how the drug companies pay off AAP. They need the official
gubmnt mandates, but they also want the AAP endorsements for
the vaccines.


Really? Could it be that there is more than on maker of certain vaccines,
and the drug companies are competing against each other? Could it be that
the ads remind and encourage doctors to vaccinate with new vaccines (like
when varicella vaccine came out a few years ago)?

What do the vaccine companies get for this supposed pay-off?

Who makes the AAP endorsements? The editor of the Journal? Or a committee of
pediatricians who are experts on infectious disease?

What about all the other journals that carry vaccine ads?

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.

My vote for the weasle move of the month.

JEff


"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

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"David Wright" wrote
hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
vaccines.

So you are backing off your argument, and now claiming that
vaccines are not the most profitable drugs ever invented. You
are probably correct. Vaccines are extremely lucrative and
profitable, but not the most profitable drugs ever invented.


Personally, I see nothing wrong with making money with life-save drugs.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
t...
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.

Your comment ("AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any
information") was immediately followed by "...State health Departments,
reputable medical institutions, and the CDC advocate for vaccination
requirements." I inferred--as I believe most people would--that you
somehow believe these latter three are more credible because of their
size and/or their power/authority (in the case of state health
departments and the CDC). My apologies if my inference was wrong (and
if was, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain just *why* the AAPS
isn't credible).

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

Again, *why* aren't they credible? What criticism do you have of their
"mission":

"Since 1943, AAPS has been the only national association of physicians
in all specialties dedicated to preserving and protecting the sanctity
of the patient-physician relationship. AAPS believes this
patient-physician relationship must be free from all third-party
interference -- whether from the government, insurance companies, or
healthcare plans. We believe patients' ability to choose their
physicians and care that's best for their needs is inviolable."

Or of their various positions/actions:

"*Fights increased government control of the practice of medicine
*Opposes increased government power to criminalize medicine and
prosecute physicians
*Supports unrestricted private contracting with Medicare patients
*Opposes national provider ID and central patient database
*Sued the government to stop enforcement of HIPAA regulations
*Taken legal action to support numerous physicians defend themselves "

(all from http://www.aapsonline.org/; "Membership 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/

Because they're near and dear to your heart, of course. Seriously, if
you think numbers (i.e., true, direct democracy) should determine
credibility or worthiness, voters might conceivably (indeed, I think
probably) would decide that education dollars are better spent on
"regular" students than on SPED kids. (An aside: The Colorado Springs
city council just voted to put a measure on November's ballot that would
raise property taxes, with the funds generated going to a private
agency--The Resource Exchange--that provides various forms of assistance
for persons with certain disabilities. Because only those with
*specified* disabilities [as opposed to all disabled individuals] would
benefit, I think rational people will vote against the measure. See the
article below.)

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.

I'll take Paul over Bob Byrd any day. Paul's a man OF character, not
simply A character.

[...]

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.

Who's jan? (And I suppose *you* have seen, "live and in person," polio
wards, giving you, according to jan, a "valid" opinion? g)

======================================
www.gazette.com, 8/8/03
Tax for disabled headed to ballot
El Paso County voters will decide in November whether to increase
property tax rates to pay for services to people with severe
disabilities.

County commissioners voted 4-1 Thursday to put the measure on the
ballot. Two commissioners who initially expressed doubts about the plan,
Chuck Brown and Jeri Howells, said supporters persuaded them to ask
voters to decide on the tax increase.

The tax would raise an estimated $4.3 million in El Paso County in the
first year, adding about $18 to the property tax bill on a house worth
$200,000. The yearly total would increase as property values and
population go up.

Commissioner Jim Bensberg opposed putting the measure on the ballot. He
said the tax would be a burden to some homeowners, particularly senior
citizens.

Bensberg also opposed the measure because the tax money would go to The
Resource Exchange, a nonprofit agency authorized in state law but which
is not a government agency.

"You talk about accountability, but there is no direct county oversight
of this agency," Bensberg told supporters of the measure.

Other commissioners said the tax will bring needed help to people with
developmental disabilities such as cerebral palsy, autism and mental
retardation.

"I prefer to live in a community that has a social conscience,"
Commissioner Tom Huffman said.

The Resource Exchange services range from basic hygiene to help finding
a job. It also serves Park and Teller counties, where commissioners have
approved putting the measure on their ballots. Money would go only to
the counties where the measure passes.

Ellen Marshall, who is disabled, told commissioners The Resource
Exchange helps people who otherwise might not participate in society.

"We've been put in the closet, so to speak. We've also been denied the
services that 'normal' people have," Marshall said.

Anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce urged commissioners not to put the
measure on the ballot. Bruce wrote the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights,
an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that requires voter approval
for new taxes. He said the government should not get involved in
services such as the ones The Resource Exchange provides.

"Government is not an insurance company, a hospital or a charity," he
told the commissioners. "You would be undermining, with good intentions,
family responsibility by extending the role of government."

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...

"Jeff Utz" wrote

But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
members, or some similar term.
Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on
full or
any
other members.

If you don't have any numbers, then where is your evidence that
the members are not health practitioners. What do you think
that they are? Why would 1000s of non-health-practitioners
be joining an organizations of physicians?

You badger me for evidence for something you know to be
probably true anyway, and then you make these completely
silly and false statements.

Roger wrote: "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." (Message-ID:
) .

So provide evidence it is "almost entirely physicians." All we know
for
certain is that the organization does not provide membership numbers
and
invites non-professionals to join.

AGAIN, Jeff, you first asserted that "Many, perhaps most, of its
[AAPS's] members are not health practioners (sic)." According to the
apparent "rules" of m.k.h., which YOU have indicated you support, it's
up to you to prove your assertion, not Roger (or anyone) to disprove it.

I concur with Riley (lo and behold!): You ARE a goober. (BTW, what's
"ingenuine"?)