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caused the rotavirus vaccine to be withdrawn from the market.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.

Actually, the FDA and CDC felt that the vaccine should be temporarily
withdrawn while the situation is more carefully evaluated. The vaccine maker
withdrew the vaccine and kept it off the market because of liability
concerns.

Jeff

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"Beth" wrote
Well, realistically, I don't think it's possible to assemble a
completely unbiased group of experts about anything.

That's right, but it is possible to make sure that diverse points of
view are represented, and to have open meetings.

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?

Yes. Right. They are hiding weaknesses in their case for vaccine
mandates.

In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:
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.

Now that Mark has made it clear that he was referring to vaccines, not
supplements, I must point out that he's incorrect; there are competing
vaccines of some types.

For those who'd like to know which vaccines still have thimerosal in
them, and how much, see this link:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm


-- 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)

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
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.

Even were the "influence" supposition correct, the companies
involved are more often bitter rivals than allies.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

"D. C. Sessions" wrote
The problem with all of this "vested interest" smokescreen is
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.

Whose premise is that? I do get worried when they say that
the only people who can be found to support the ACIP policy
are those who have been paid off by the vaccine lobby.

(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. 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.

It's like finding anyone in Hollywood who has not worked with
someone who has worked with someone who has worked with Kevin
Bacon: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

(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?

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?

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

"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.

Proof please?


Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré