3 of 4 Authors in Medical Journals Have Conflicts of Interest

"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.)

The ACIP is an advisory body, not a policy making body. The extent to
which the CDC acts on the recommendations is up to the CDC. To call
the ACIP a government policy body is factually incorrect.

The ACIPs recommendations are generally followed though the CDC has
the right and obligation to review the recommendations and act
independently, which it does.

There have been a number of occasions where ACIP recommendations were
modified by the CDC before implementation.

The CDC provides a recommended vaccination schedule. These schedules
are implemented at the state (not Federal) level.

What is it about this process that makes it so difficult to
understand, Roger?


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.

"United States immunization policy is largely dictated by the CDC. It
appoints members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
(ACIP), which then makes a schedule of vaccine recommendations and
publishes it in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The
members are often nominated by the drug companies and have substantial
financial ties to the drug companies."

Nominated? Substantial?

"Another ACIP recommendation is the oral polio vaccine. The World
Health Organization has declared polio eradicated from the western
hemisphere. The last case of polio "in the wild" was in Peru in 1991.
Yet, the live oral polio vaccine is still given, and some people still
get polio from the vaccine."

[sure - in Madagascar] ACIP recommends OPV? But here4 is the CDC
recommendation, Roger:

"To eliminate the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis,
an all-IPV schedule is recommended for routine childhood vaccination
in the United States."

This just happens to be consistent with the ACIP recommendation (2000)
published in the MMWR (MMWR Weekly January 21, 2000;49(02):35-38, 47.)

Roger's soap box:

"The immunization policy is a public policy disgrace because it is a
secretive process conducted by biased and unaccountable parties."

Your government officials at work, Roger. Your medical community at
work, Roger.

I think Roger doesn't know what he is talking about. At least not in
his "landmark" Sentinel publication.

js

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...
"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.

ACIP recommends vaccination schedules, Roger. ACIP does not set
policy. They cannot because they aren't a government agency - they
are an advisory panel with the responsibility to provide advice to a
government policy setting agency. Get it through your head. In no
case do either organizations make laws.

ACIP:

"The Committee shall consist of 15 members, including the Chair.
Members and the Chair shall be selected by the Secretary from
authorities who are knowledgeable in the fields of immunization
practices and public health, have expertise in the use of vaccines and
immunobiologic agents in clinical practice or preventive medicine,
have experience with clinical or laboratory vaccine research, or have
expertise in assessment of vaccine efficacy and safety. The Committee
shall include a person or persons knowledgeable about consumer
perspectives and/or social and community aspects of immunization
programs."


NVAC is the big brother and sets out vaccination policy/strategy for
the nation.

Who endorses the NVAC recommendations?

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices
Albert B. Sabin Vaccine Institute
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College of Emergency Physicians
American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Public Health Association
Association of Immunization Program Managers
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Center for Pediatric Research
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Every Child by Two
Health Resources and Services Administration
Immunization Action Coalition
Infectious Diseases Society of America
National Alliance for Hispanic Health
National Asian Women's Health Organization
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care
National Association for City and County Health Officials
National Association for Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Association of School Nurses
National Coalition for Adult Immunization
National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Medical Association
National Network of Immunization Nurses and Associates
National Partnership for Immunization
National Perinatal Association
Partnership for Prevention
Pediatric Infectious Disease Society
Project Immunize Virginia
Rotary International
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Society for Teachers of Family Medicine
Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

OK - so, now we have a list of hundreds or even thousands of people.
All bought and sold?

Yep, and here come the black helicopters....

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The ACIP is an advisory body, not a policy making body. The extent to
which the CDC acts on the recommendations is up to the CDC. To call
the ACIP a government policy body is factually incorrect.

No, it is correct to say that the ACIP is a policy making body.
It considers vaccine alternatives, makes decisions, and gives rationales
for those decisions. Many of those decisions eventually have the force
of law, in one way or another. That makes it a policy making body.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...
"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.

You did, Then when others jumped in to say they just give
recommendations JG jumped in (and now is trying to squirm away).

I think you are the one confusing recommendations from a national
advisory comittee with laws out in place by local (i.e. not federal)
governments. - Which is where this whole thing started.

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
m...
"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.

Strawman.

@#$%&!, Chris! Have you been using some of the "controlled substances"
to which you no doubt have access?!? Or tokin' some weed? I've *never*
seen you make such utterly dense comments... I neither said nor implied
that the CDC makes ANY laws, including those regarding required (for
school) vaccinations! Why in the world would you equate recommendations
with laws?!? And do you somehow think that if you repeat your erroneous
belief/statement that *local* (as opposed to state) officials establish
school vaccination requirements that it'll magically become true?

So you can play games with trying to
confuse the issues of who is advising who

No one's trying to confuse anyone, Chris; I'm just correcting your
misstatements (errors). You're simply, somehow, confusing yourself
(again!).

but the point remains that
the "biased" researchers only give advise and that advise is not
always followed.

Hallelujah! Back to my original question! Let me put it as simply as I
can for you: The ACIP meets and discusses the merits of various
vaccines. It gives each one either a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down,"
and pasess on its decision (*recommendation*--you still with me?) to CDC
officials, who then either accept or reject the ACIP's recommendation
(advice). THE QUESTION: Have CDC officials ever declined to recommend
(to state public health officials) a vaccine to which the ACIP has given
a "thumbs up"?

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.

I'm not "distorting" anything ...and I think you're muddling them out of
sheer stupidity!

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.

Look, Chris, that may be the topic IN YOUR HEAD, but it's NOT the topic
at hand. The CDC does "set policy" (look up "policy" in the
dictionary), including vaccination policy; it does NOT--indeed,
*cannot*, make laws. (The core problem here is that you obviously think
that policies are the same thing as, or equivalent to, laws. They're
not, anymore than state governments are "local" governments.) Look,
before you continue further to argue that CDC officials don't "set
policy," perhaps you should check the the CDC's "mission" (from
http://www.cdc.gov/aboutcdc.htm):
CDC's Mission
To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling
disease, injury, and disability.

CDC seeks to accomplish its mission by working with partners throughout
the nation and world to monitor health, detect and investigate health
problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate
sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote
healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide
leadership and training.

[...]

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.


lol! Get off it, Chris. Another strawman argument from a strawman (cue
the orchestra)...

You could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And your head you'd be scratchin'
While your thoughts were busy hatchin'
If you only had a brain...

(apologies to Yip Harburg, uber-leftist that he was...)

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.

In Chrisland only...

(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?

*sigh* You said, "...it is not required by the school discticts I know
of"; well, OF COURSE it's not!--it's not even RECOMMENDED for
school-aged (K and up) kids!! (I actually think you've been
"out-strawmaning" Jonathan!)

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.)

Go to http://home.san.rr.com/via/STATES/allstates.htm and click on each
state, then on "XYZ (the state) Immunization Requirements." You're
welcome.

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

NO, they're not; they're set by the STATE. Take a civics course
sometime (around here, the roles/duties of local, state, and national
governments are covered in 7th grade)...

and
not any government advisory committee or paid reseachers (which is the
whole point).

No one has said differently!

Again, we started witht he claim that these "tainted" researchers are
setting policy.

Maybe you'd learn the difference between "policies" and "laws" in your
remedial civics course, too.

Now that this has been blown out of the water you are
just trying shift the discussion of who is advising who.

Ah, Chris, give it up already! (Oh wait, the Chrisworld rule that since
no one, besides me, has disagreed with/challenged you means you're
right, doesn't it?g)

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.

Bwahahaha! Shifting (or at least trying to) the goalposts now, aren't
you? Look, "local," "state," and "national" have very specific
meanings--they're well-defined/delineated--when discussing US
governments. (I suppose by your "it's all relative" argument, GWB is a
"local," vis-a-vis the world, politician and the UN, vis-a-vis the
universe, is a "local" organization? g)

Face it - when you have to start parsing terms this
finely (and incorrectly) your argument is shot.

Maybe, while you're checking out civics courses, you could see if there
are any debating courses offered at a time compatible with your
schedule. An English course wouldn't hurt, either.

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.

*sigh* From the site: "In cooperation with the Statewide Advisory
Commission on Immunizations and the State Board of Eduation, the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene adopts rules and regulations for
immunizations and blood tests for lead poisoning required for children
entering school (Code Eduation Article, sec. 7-403)."

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.

....could have fooled me!

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
"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.

CBI has been hanging around too long with the mkh regulars who routinely
mangle the language. You're quite right; the CDC does set vaccination
policy (a plan or course of action, as of a government, political party,
or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and
other matters; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
ed.) for the country. CBI obviously doesn't understand the difference
between setting (formulating) policy and actually enacting laws anymore
than he understands the difference between state and local government
functions/duties. I included the CDC's "mission" in another post; it
clearly states that they "develop and advocate" (public health)
policies.

"JG" wrote
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.
CBI has been hanging around too long with the mkh regulars who routinely
mangle the language. You're quite right; the CDC does set vaccination
policy (a plan or course of action, as of a government, political party,
or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and
other matters; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th
ed.) for the country.

Yes, and the ACIP writes many of those policies for the CDC.

CBI obviously doesn't understand the difference
between setting (formulating) policy and actually enacting laws anymore
than he understands the difference between state and local government
functions/duties. I included the CDC's "mission" in another post; it
clearly states that they "develop and advocate" (public health)
policies.

You are being optimistic if you think that CBI or Jonathan will
understand these simple points. Even with explanations, they
show no clue.

JG wrote:

CBI has been hanging around too long with the mkh regulars
who
routinely mangle the language. You're quite right; the
CDC does set
vaccination policy

I understand that they set their own policies that are not
binding on anyone else. This is the part that you and Rog
seem to not get. The school policies - as in the rules that
determine f the kid can go - are not set by the ACIP or the
CDC.

--
CBI, MD

Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
The ACIP is an advisory body, not a policy making body.
The extent
to which the CDC acts on the recommendations is up to the
CDC. To
call the ACIP a government policy body is factually
incorrect.

No, it is correct to say that the ACIP is a policy making
body.
It considers vaccine alternatives, makes decisions, and
gives
rationales for those decisions. Many of those decisions
eventually
have the force of law, in one way or another. That makes
it a policy
making body.

If their advice eventually becomes law it is only because
the elected officials find it compelling. Anyone, even you,
could offer contradictory advice and try to convince them
otherwise. Pointing out that their advice is generally
followed is not the same as them making the laws.

--
CBI, MD

JG wrote:

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.

Strawman.

Not at all.

@#$%&!, Chris! Have you been using some of the
"controlled
substances" to which you no doubt have access?!? Or
tokin' some
weed? I've *never* seen you make such utterly dense
comments...

Earlier, in another thread, you asked for exmples of
comments like this.


I
neither said nor implied that the CDC makes ANY laws,
including those
regarding required (for school) vaccinations!

No, that was Roger. He did it again just this evening and in
this thread. Then when JS and I correct him you jump into
the thread and start deriding us about it. Then when we
defend our comments you come back with expressions of wonder
over why we are making the points we are making.


Why in the world would
you equate recommendations with laws?!?

I don't. My whole point is that there is a big difference.


And do you somehow think
that if you repeat your erroneous belief/statement that
*local* (as
opposed to state) officials establish school vaccination
requirements
that it'll magically become true?

I just don't accept your definition of local. Get over it.
As I said before it is a relative term. In this case I have
made it very clear that I use the term to distinguish
federal regulations from others.



but the point remains that
the "biased" researchers only give advise and that advise
is not
always followed.

Hallelujah! Back to my original question! Let me put it
as simply
as I can for you: The ACIP meets and discusses the merits
of various
vaccines. It gives each one either a "thumbs up" or a
"thumbs down,"
and pasess on its decision (*recommendation*--you still
with me?) to
CDC officials, who then either accept or reject the ACIP's
recommendation (advice). THE QUESTION: Have CDC
officials ever
declined to recommend (to state public health officials) a
vaccine to
which the ACIP has given a "thumbs up"?

The whole question is a straw man since the CDC does not set
school vaccination policy. A more to the point question
would be if the local (be they state or county or city -
whatever) officals always follow the ACIP/CDC
recommendations. The answer to this is unequivocally, "no."
One exmple of this is in one of the links you posted earlier
where they mention that varicella vaccine will now be added
to the required for school entry list. The ACIP and CDC
recommended varicella vaccine years ago so until now the
state of Maryland has been failing to follow their
recommendations. Similarly, there have been outbreaks of
hepatitis A in the Baltimore area and so according to he
ACIP/CDC hep A vaccine should have been given but the
schools also did not require this.

The point is that the ACIP/CDC recommendations do not
invariably become law.



But the topic at hand is whether the "biased" researchers
who make
recommendations set policy.

Look, Chris, that may be the topic IN YOUR HEAD, but it's
NOT the
topic at hand. The CDC does "set policy"

Of course they do. You set policies, I set policies, my
office has policies - every individual and organization sets
policies. By and large those don't matter to anyone else.
When I mentioned policies I meant policies that affect many
other people - specifically school vaccination policies.
The CDC can sit around and make whatever policy it wants but
it alone won't determine whether Johnny can attend school.

This is not the topic just in my head. When I got involved
in this whole little misadventure was when JS was setting
Roger straight about the fact that the CDC only issues
advice and does not write laws. This is the distinction I
have been interested in from the start and all I have been
attempting to discuss. You, knowing you can't win that
argument but hell bent to argue anyway, are the one trying
to change the subject to the relationship between the ACIP
and CDC and then whining when I don't happily go along on
your little tangent.



Oh, geeze. "Local" is a relative term. We are
distinguishing federal
from otherwise.

Bwahahaha! Shifting (or at least trying to) the goalposts
now, aren't
you? Look, "local," "state," and "national" have very
specific
meanings--they're well-defined/delineated--when discussing
US
governments. (I suppose by your "it's all relative"
argument, GWB is
a "local," vis-a-vis the world, politician and the UN,
vis-a-vis the
universe, is a "local" organization? g)

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...onary&va=local

Besides - this is a semantic argument. I have explained to
you several times what I meant when I used the term. Even if
you produce a quote from God declaring you right on this one
small issue it still does not change the point I am making.
If it makes you feel better then just insert "state"
everywhere I say "local" and get back to the issue at hand
(at least the one I am discussing).

Oh wait, you have already conceded the point I am trying to
make (rasing the question of why you even jumped in to begin
with) and instead seem intent on parsing terms and
discussing irrelevant relationships betwen government
agenices. . I know you claim that my point is not the point
but this leaves us at a loss to determine what your point is
other than just to have an argument. I wonder if we could
get John Cleese to swing by.


Face it - when you have to start parsing terms this
finely (and incorrectly) your argument is shot.

Maybe, while you're checking out civics courses, you could
see if
there are any debating courses offered at a time
compatible with your
schedule. An English course wouldn't hurt, either.

Uh, huh. And we all know what it means then you resort to
the personal attacks (as much as I do appreciate that you
are not charging for the abuse). Since this is as close to
an admission of defeat as we will get and I am thoroughly
convinced that you are now just arguing for argument's sake
this seems like a good time to break things off.



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.

*sigh* From the site: "In cooperation with the Statewide
Advisory
Commission on Immunizations and the State Board of
Eduation, the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene adopts rules and
regulations
for immunizations and blood tests for lead poisoning
required for
children entering school (Code Eduation Article, sec.
7-403)."

This does not contradict what I said. These commissions
would be appointees under the auspices of the elected
officals.


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.

...could have fooled me!

Apparently.

--
CBI, MD