3 of 4 Authors in Medical Journals Have Conflicts of Interest

In article ,
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.

Ah, Roger, it's always such fun to watch you twist, dance, spin, and
try to make words appear to say something other than what they really
mean.

Wait, did I say "such fun?" I meant "so disgusting."

-- 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)

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

Honestly Roger, I really don't give a flying you know what what you
think.

ACIP doesn't make government policy regarding vaccination. It is a
fact, Roger - irrespective of your spinning babble. The enabling
legislation is quite clear on that. Then again, you don't seem to
have a very positive attitude toward lawyers and the law either.

Now go out and play nice with the other children.

js

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

Writes policies FOR the CDC.

I can write a policy for me or my business but that hardly makes it
public policy, now does it.
Vaccination policy set forth by the government is public policy byu
definition. Public policy is defined as:

"The basic policy or set of policies forming the foundation of public
laws, especially such policy not yet formally enunciated."

The only agency that can write public policy is one empowered to do
so. The enabling legislation for the CDC does that. It does not
empower the ACIP to do anything BUT advise on policy matters.

Read the law.

That said, the policy of any organization be it a professional
organization like the AAP or a governmental organization such as the
CDC does not make it a regulation or law. It takes legislation (or
enabling legislation) and there is none. CDC cannot and does not set
vaccination regulations or laws. That is left up to the states to
manage. However, CDC sets government policy on vaccination. ACIP, be
definition, design, and enabling legislation recommends and advises
the CDC through NIP on what that policy can or should be.

That is the process, Roger, whether you like it or not.

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.

Roger - simplicity is your middle name - unfortunately, the function
of government is hardly simplistic.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote
Yes, and the ACIP writes many of those policies for the CDC.
Writes policies FOR the CDC.

You picked a fight by claiming that the ACIP is not a policy
making body. Now you concede that the ACIP writes policies
for the CDC. Good. Glad to see that you are capable of learning
something.

I can write a policy for me or my business but that hardly makes it
public policy, now does it.

No, but CDC policies are public policies.

Vaccination policy set forth by the government is public policy byu
definition. Public policy is defined as:
"The basic policy or set of policies forming the foundation of public
laws, especially such policy not yet formally enunciated."

If you had looked up the definition in the first place, maybe you
wouldn't have made such a fool out of yourself.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
Yes, and the ACIP writes many of those policies for the CDC.
Writes policies FOR the CDC.

There should have been a question mark at the end, Roger. Sorry.

Writes policies FOR the CDC?

You picked a fight by claiming that the ACIP is not a policy
making body.

I didn't pick a fight - you were in error when you said:

"But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction. The USA vaccine committees only have members who
are biased towards the vaccine industry. There are no Wakefields
on the committees."

In which you associate government policy making and vaccine
committees.

Now, I can imagine how you will dance around this one - so for the
sake of argument -

I interpreted that to mean that you believe the ACIP makes government
policy.

If that is true - if you believe this - then I will once again say -
no, you are incorrect. The role of the ACIP is to provide expert
advice to the CDC and NIP, actually) to help these two government
organizations set forth public policy regarding vaccination in the US.

Could I be any clearer than that?

w you concede that the ACIP writes policies
for the CDC. Good. Glad to see that you are capable of learning
something.

I make typos - yep, learned something but thats hardly new.

I can write a policy for me or my business but that hardly makes it
public policy, now does it.

No, but CDC policies are public policies.

Yes, that they are. But the AAP policies are not, nor are the
recommendations of the ACIP.

Vaccination policy set forth by the government is public policy byu
definition. Public policy is defined as:
"The basic policy or set of policies forming the foundation of public
laws, especially such policy not yet formally enunciated."

If you had looked up the definition in the first place, maybe you
wouldn't have made such a fool out of yourself.

Had you bothered to read past that,

The only agency that can write public policy is one empowered to do
so. The enabling legislation for the CDC does that. It does not
empower the ACIP to do anything BUT advise on policy matters.

You wouldn't have stepped in the deep doodoo again.

One more time for the reading impaired:

The CDC cannot and does not set vaccination regulations or laws. That
is left up to the states to manage. However, CDC sets government
policy on vaccination. ACIP, be definition, design, and enabling
legislation recommends and advises the CDC through NIP on what that
policy can or should be.

In case you missed it - public policy is made by public institutions
empowered through enabling legislation to promulgate policy. The ACIP
is not nor ever has had the legislative authority to promulgate public
policy.

Now - show me that this is an incorrect statement, Roger - or go out
and play in traffic.

js

"Jonathan Smith" wrote
Yes, and the ACIP writes many of those policies for the CDC.
Writes policies FOR the CDC.
There should have been a question mark at the end, Roger. Sorry.
Writes policies FOR the CDC?

You had it right without the question mark.

"But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction. The USA vaccine committees only have members who
are biased towards the vaccine industry. There are no Wakefields
on the committees."
In which you associate government policy making and vaccine
committees.

Of course I do.

At least you concede that the CDC is responsible for national
vaccine policy. CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
school boards, or something like that. (He is too incoherent to
tell for sure what he thinks.)

Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many of them
are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written by the ACIP?
Yes, they are. Doesn't that give you a clue that the ACIP has
something to do with vaccine policy?

Be sure an answer quicky -- you might make a typo and get
something right! g

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote
Yes, and the ACIP writes many of those policies for the CDC.
Writes policies FOR the CDC.
There should have been a question mark at the end, Roger. Sorry.
Writes policies FOR the CDC?

You had it right without the question mark.

Not according to how the government has the process set up. You
really ought to get the facts straight. ACIP is not a government
policy making organization. It makes recommendations, it provides
advice, it assesses data and provides conclusions for consideration.
The only bodies empowered to make government policy are those bodies
empoweered by their enabling legislation to do so. There is no
legislation that empowers the ACIP to make government policy. No
matter how much you stamp your feet, Roger, it just isn't so.

"But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees should
stick to people without blatant biases, or perhaps balance the
biased members with some who are biased in the opposite
direction. The USA vaccine committees only have members who
are biased towards the vaccine industry. There are no Wakefields
on the committees."
In which you associate government policy making and vaccine
committees.

Of course I do.

But you are wrong - you will continue to be wrong - and insisting that
ACIP makes government policy is wrong. But by admitting that ACIP
only makes recommendations, not policy, the rest of your conspiracy
house of cards falls apart, now doesn't it. And you can't have that,
now can you.

At least you concede that the CDC is responsible for national
vaccine policy.

Technically, CDC provides recommendations to the states on what the
states policy should be - and policy really means little until it is
enacated in regulation or law. In most states, however, the vaccine
schedule recommended by the CDC is the one that the school attendance
laws consider to be the local policy.

CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
school boards, or something like that. (He is too incoherent to
tell for sure what he thinks.)

I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction between Federal and
local was quite clear. You do realize there is no Federal vaccination
law or regulation for school attendance, right? The only possible
exception would be Federal schools, and there are only about 50 or 60
of them.

Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many of them
are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written by the ACIP?

Actually, no - in fact, not even NVAC makes policy statements but
rather makes recommendations to the medical community of standards.

See the statement published in PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 4 October 2003,
pp. 958-963, part of whioch I've reproduced below:
-------------
"Health care professionals who vaccinate children and adolescents
continue to face important challenges. These challenges include a
diminishing level of experience—among patients, parents, and
physicians—with the diseases that vaccines prevent, the ready
availability of vaccine-related information that may be inaccurate or
misleading, the increasing complexity of the vaccination schedule, and
the failure of many health plans to pay for the costs associated with
vaccination. In addition, recommendations from the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the
American Medical Association in 1996 underscored the need to focus on
adolescent vaccination.9

In this context, NVAC, along with partners representing the federal
agencies, state and local health departments, and professional
organizations, revised and updated the standards during 2001–2002 to
reflect these changes and challenges in vaccine delivery. The revision
was approved by NVAC on February 8, 2002 (Table 1), and distributed
widely among a variety of medical and public health organizations for
review and endorsement. Table 2 lists those organizations that have
formally endorsed the Standards for Child and Adolescent Immunization
Practices."
-----

See how the system works? Good.

Here is a description of how the Federal Governments policy on
smallpox was developed:

"The federal government is also playing a central role in the
development of a smallpox vaccination strategy. On June 20, 2002, the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued a Draft
Supplemental Recommendation Concerning the Use of Smallpox (Vaccinia)
Vaccine. The recommendation, which is now under consideration by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), supplements the recommendation issued
in June 2001. The supplemental recommendation, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/smallpox/supp_recs.htm, addresses vaccination
of the general population and of those designated to care for persons
with suspected or confirmed cases of smallpox. In addition, the new
recommendations clarify the strategy for dealing with a smallpox
outbreak."

Here are the key words
ACIP
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
CDC
HHS

Got it? Good.

Now, who makes government policy regarding immunization practices?
Not ACIP.

However, in the documents published by CDC and its subsidiary, the
NIP, the vaccine schedule is endorsed by the ACIP, AAP, and AAFP.

Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look in the footer.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-sc....htm#Printable

Thanks for playing along, Roger.

Yes, they are. Doesn't that give you a clue that the ACIP has
something to do with vaccine policy?

Absolutely. And no one disputes that the role and function of the
ACIP is to provide technical, medical, and scientific advice to the
CDC regarding vaccination policy. So, what is your problem?

ACIP doesn't make government policy, the CDC does. And the CDC
doesn't make regulations or laws - they recommend these policies to
those who have the legislative authority to promulgate regulations.
This authority rests with the states and typically with the Department
of Health in the state.

And believe it or not, some states have different vaccination
regulations than other states.

In the absence of immunization exemption and other factors, the
following is an example from the Colorado school/day care attendance
requirements. Influenza which under CDC policy is optional is not
optional in Colorado. Similarly, though recommended in the CDC
policy, Colorado does not require Pneumococcal at this time.

Florida requires two doses of measles but ionly one of mumps and
rubella for admission to kindergarten. The CDC policy recommendation
is two of each.

California makes distinctions between 4-6 year olds and 7 year olds
which is inconsistent with CDC policy. Td booster at age 11-12 is
recommended by CDC policy but not required by California Health and
Safety code for school attendance.

So regardless of what the ACIP recommendation is, or the expressed
Federal government policy published by the CDC, or the standards
delineated by the NVAC, the states do what they please.

Be sure an answer quicky -- you might make a typo and get
something right! g

OK - at least getting things right isn't an anomaly when I post.

Good luck.

js

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message m...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message ...

CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
school boards, or something like that. (He is too incoherent to
tell for sure what he thinks.)

I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction between Federal and
local was quite clear. You do realize there is no Federal vaccination
law or regulation for school attendance, right? The only possible
exception would be Federal schools, and there are only about 50 or 60
of them.

Yeah, Roger has a mental block about comprehending anything he does
not want to accept. I'm sure it is a defense mechanism that has saved
his ego on many occassions.

The joke is that one of JG's favorite things to do is to quote the
dictionary. I'm sure she would not have gone back and forth about the
whole thing for several posts without citing one if there was a
citation to prove her point. On the contrary, the m-w definition I
cited does not.


Absolutely. And no one disputes that the role and function of the
ACIP is to provide technical, medical, and scientific advice to the
CDC regarding vaccination policy. So, what is your problem?

His problem, as ludicrous as it is, is that non-technical voices are
not represented in this body. It is been explained to him that his
concerns are addressed (or should be) by the politicos who actually
make decisions about putting the recommendations into law and that
asking sociologists etc for input on the scientific review panel would
be misplaced but this is another example of his mental block. Blaming
it on the governor just doesn't seem to have the same appeal for him.



ACIP doesn't make government policy, the CDC does. And the CDC
doesn't make regulations or laws - they recommend these policies to
those who have the legislative authority to promulgate regulations.
This authority rests with the states and typically with the Department
of Health in the state.

Yeah, but he can't find a website that proves they are all biased so
there is no fun in it for him. It is much more fun to keep posting
links to drug company funding and pretending that those guys actually
write laws.



And believe it or not, some states have different vaccination
regulations than other states.

Gee - but there is only one CDC/NIP and only one AAP/ACIP/AAFP
approved vaccine schedule. If the "CDC policies" are tantamount to law
how could that be?

--
CBI, MD

"Jonathan Smith" wrote:
Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many of them
are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written by the ACIP?
Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look in the footer.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-sc....htm#Printable

Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one, by the ACIP:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm

"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
m...
"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...

CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
school boards, or something like that. (He is too incoherent to
tell for sure what he thinks.)

I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction between Federal
and
local was quite clear. You do realize there is no Federal
vaccination
law or regulation for school attendance, right? The only possible
exception would be Federal schools, and there are only about 50 or
60
of them.

CBI? Coherent? Get real!

CBI incorrectly stated that vaccination requirements for schools are set
by LOCAL school boards and boards of health, and then tried to weasel
out of his misstatement with the lame argument that "local" government
(school boards/boards of health) can mean "state" government if you're
speaking relative to the federal (national) government. As proof that
he indeed meant "local" (government) in the accepted use of the term, he
waded further into his self-made quagmire by stating (again,
erroneously) that the city of Baltimore establishes, independently
(i.e., independent of the state government), vaccination requirements
for city students.

Yeah, Roger has a mental block about comprehending anything he does
not want to accept. I'm sure it is a defense mechanism that has saved
his ego on many occassions.

....And you have a propensity to (try to) twist and squirm your way out
of your misstatements, frequently by tossing out ridiculous strawman
arguments. Why not just admit it when you've erred and cut your losses?

The joke is that one of JG's favorite things to do is to quote the
dictionary. I'm sure she would not have gone back and forth about the
whole thing for several posts without citing one if there was a
citation to prove her point. On the contrary, the m-w definition I
cited does not.

You want a "dictionary definition," Chris? Okay, here are two for you:

lo·cal
adj.
1. a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place: a local
custom; the local slang.
b. Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather than a larger
area: state and local government.
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition)
=============================================
local
adj 1: relating to applicable to or concerned with a city or town or
district rather than a larger area; "local taxes"; "local schools and
churches"; "a local bus line"; "local authorities"; "local streets and
roads"; "local control"

(WordNet 1.6, Princeton University)

=============================================

Absolutely. And no one disputes that the role and function of the
ACIP is to provide technical, medical, and scientific advice to the
CDC regarding vaccination policy. So, what is your problem?

His problem, as ludicrous as it is, is that non-technical voices are
not represented in this body. It is been explained to him that his
concerns are addressed (or should be) by the politicos who actually
make decisions about putting the recommendations into law

LOL! Look, Chris, I pointed out to you that even in your own state, the
"decisions about putting the recommendations into law" are made by
bureaucrats and other persons not elected to any office, not "politicos"
(politicians).

ACIP doesn't make government policy, the CDC does.

You're quibbling. Has the CDC *ever* recommended a vaccine against the
advice of the ACIP? Has the CDC ever not recommended a vaccine that the
ACIP endorsed?

And the CDC
doesn't make regulations or laws

No one has said that they do! (Honestly, don't you think it's time to
torch this strawman?)

- they recommend these policies to
those who have the legislative authority to promulgate regulations.

--or to pass legislation.

This authority rests with the states and typically with the
Department
of Health in the state.

--or with the legislature itself.

[...]