The smearing of Andrew Wakefield

When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
integrity is like feeding the flames of truth. Fitzpatrick has been a great help also--at least two
front page stories. Great.

The smearing of Andrew Wakefield http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/000345.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/wakefield.html

By Melanie Phillips Daily Mail melanie@melaniephillips.com

Daily Mail, 23 February 2004

From the moment that surgeon Andrew Wakefield first published his explosive theory suggesting a link
between autism, bowel disease and the measles, mumps and rubella triple jab, the government and the
medical establishment have been determined to discredit him and thus destroy his research.

Over the weekend, it looked as if they had finally managed it. The Sunday Times suggested that Mr
Wakefield's original Lancet paper in 1998, which first indicated such links, was a scandalous
manipulation of the evidence.

The report claimed Mr Wakefield had failed to tell the Lancet he had also received legal aid funds
to carry out a separate study, as part of the legal case being brought by parents of autistic
children against the MMR manufacturers. To make matters even worse, it alleged, some of the children
in the Lancet paper were involved in the court case. The Lancet study was therefore fatally
compromised, since the parents had stood to gain financially if Mr Wakefield's researches had
enabled them to claim compensation.

No sooner did the story appear than the Health Secretary Dr John Reid demanded an urgent inquiry.
However, upon examination the picture significantly changes. The Sunday Times originally made a
series of claims against Mr Wakefield, which were all actually rejected by the Lancet except for the
conflict of interest. But when one looks at the facts, this too begins to look a bit different.

Mr Wakefield's legal aid-funded study was commissioned by solicitor Richard Barr, who had been
approached by parents of children sick with autism and bowel disease who wanted to take legal action
against the manufacturers of
MMR. Mr Barr wanted to know whether there was clinical evidence to support such a case. So he asked
Mr Wakefield to look at possible links between measles virus and bowel disease.

The Sunday Times report claimed that four or five of the 12 children in the entirely separate Lancet
study were part of this legal action. But their parents only decided to go to court after they had
been accepted for treatment by Mr Wakefield's team at London's Royal Free hospital.

The implication that they were selected because they were litigants with a financial interest in the
results of the clinical examination is grotesque. All twelve of them were referred through normal
NHS processes, either from doctors' recommendations or after desperate parents, having heard on the
grapevine of Mr Wakefield's unusual sympathy towards these problems, had contacted him of their own
volition. It was only subsequently that a few of them became part of the legal case.

So the two Wakefield studies were entirely separate, with no cross over. True, the Lancet editor has
said the second study should have been disclosed to avoid the 'perception' of a conflict of
interest, and that had he known of its existence, he wouldn't have published Mr Wakefield's paper
which was 'fatally flawed' as a result.

But surely Mr Wakefield is being accused of a conflict of interest which did not occur at the time,
in order to create the false impression that he and his colleagues deliberately skewed their
selection of children for investigation in the Lancet exercise to support a crack-brained theory.
Surely, he is being damned by the misleading application of hindsight, which has seriously
misrepresented what happened. In other words, this appears to be nothing other than a smear.

It is also a smear whose timing should raise a few eyebrows. For the Legal Services Commission has
now cut off legal aid funding for the parents, which threatens to stop the case altogether. It
just so happened that Mr Barr applied for judicial review of that decision a week ago, and
judgment has been reserved. So this smear looks very like an attempt to influence the court and
ensure the case dies.

And make no mistake, the stakes could not be higher. The drug companies, the government and the
medical establishment have every reason to fear this case going ahead.

For although Mr Wakefield is the focus of the frenzy, many other pieces of evidence suggest that
concern over the vaccine is by no means confined to one possibly obsessive doctor. Although the vast
majority of children clearly have no adverse reaction whatever from the MMR jab, the number of
families with a very different story to tell indicate that, for a small proportion of children,
something worrying may be happening.

What is so striking is the sheer volume of parents, not just in Britain but in America and other
countries, who tell the same story of children who were developing normally - often with videos to
prove it - only to stop developing and start suffering bowel disease after the MMR jab.

Moreover, vaccine-strain measles virus has been found in the gut of some children with autism and
bowel disease. Earlier this month Dr Jeff Bradstreet, a US autism researcher, presented evidence to
the Institute of Medicine in Washington showing measles virus in the cerebral-spinal fluid of three
children with autism and bowel disease.

This virus most definitely should not be there; and the question is how it got there in children who
had been vaccinated against measles. None of this proves MMR causes either bowel disease or autism;
but it certainly indicates a cause for concern.

The government insists, however, that research overwhelmingly shows the vaccine is safe. But this is
not so. The research in question investigates patterns of disease based on medical records. But this
is unlikely to get to the bottom of the issue, since countless parents have said doctors not only
failed to diagnose autism or bowel disease in their children but dismissed out of hand the parents'
reports that the problems seemed to start with the triple jab.

In any event, these studies do not prove MMR is safe. They say there is no proof it is not safe, a
very different matter. The official misrepresentation of these conclusions is one of the most
worrying things about this controversy. This is particularly so since the government had introduced
the first type of MMR vaccine in 1989 - which it had to withdraw three years later because it was
shown to cause aseptic meningitis - even though it knew at the time that Canada had already
withdrawn it because it was found to be unsafe.

And as for conflicts of interest, what about the many scientists on the government's vaccine safety
bodies who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies?

Certainly, it is extremely worrying if parents are refusing to vaccinate their children against
measles, mumps and rubella, with the dangers they pose of serious illness or even death. But not
only does the government refuse to allow the use of less worrying single jabs - it also refuses to
do the one thing that could settle this matter one way or the other.

Instead of calling for an inquiry into Mr Wakefield and dismissing parents' concerns with such
contempt, it should commission an independent, clinical investigation of affected children. Only
then will we be able to judge who in this wretched story is actually right, and only then will all
children get the vaccinations they need.

"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com>...
> When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
> integrity is like feeding the flames of truth.

Really? Who is the quack-puppet here? Wakefield got caught with his hand in the money till. What's
good for the goose is good for the gander.

You moake the standards, yet your guy doesn't live up to them.

Jeff

"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com...
> When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
> integrity

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

John is bleating and braying...Wakefield was paid, and hid, over a $100K for his deception....

How many kids were maimed by him? How many needless deaths?

Mark, He was a Doctor was he not ?

Cheers, Rod. "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark Probert02-23-04@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
message news:P52%b.15944$M8.1029396@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com...
> > When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
> > integrity
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> John is bleating and braying...Wakefield was paid, and hid, over a $100K
for
> his deception....
>
> How many kids were maimed by him? How many needless deaths?

"Rod" <deniecerod1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fm2%b.76166$Wa.50931@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Mark, He was a Doctor was he not ?

No, he IS a doctor. They have not gotten around to the "was" part yet. However, John Scudamore loves
him, so he was not a real doctor.

>
> Cheers, Rod. "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark Probert02-23-04@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:P52%b.15944$M8.1029396@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >
> > "john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com...
> > > When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
> > > integrity
> >
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > John is bleating and braying...Wakefield was paid, and hid, over a $100K
> for
> > his deception....
> >
> > How many kids were maimed by him? How many needless deaths?
> >
> >

>From: whaleto@btinternet.com (john)
>Date: 2/25/2004 12:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com>

>Subject: The smearing of Andrew Wakefield

He was getting to close to the truth.

Organized medicine wants to shut him up.

It is ironic that the *gang* is *NOW* interested in conflicts of interest.

When it came from the CDC and FDA and they couldn't hide it any longer,,,,

*IT WAS HONEST*

Plus

*There is no money in vacines*.

Mark Probert who eagerly posted this, previously used the excuse,

*It is useless to discsuss anything with you*.

This is yet another witch hunt from EVIL organized medicine.

We just saw recently how they work, they broke all the rules and there was not ONE SINGLE complaint
from the patients of Dr Kadile.

When they failed to get his license revoked, Mark called it a slap on the wrist.

Thanks for posting the truth once again, John.

Jan

>When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
>integrity is like feeding the flames of truth. Fitzpatrick has been a great help also--at least two
>front page stories. Great.
>
>The smearing of Andrew Wakefield http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/000345.html
>
>http://www.whale.to/vaccines/wakefield.html
>
>
>By Melanie Phillips Daily Mail melanie@melaniephillips.com
>
>
>Daily Mail, 23 February 2004
>
>From the moment that surgeon Andrew Wakefield first published his explosive theory suggesting a
>link between autism, bowel disease and the measles, mumps and rubella triple jab, the government
>and the medical establishment have been determined to discredit him and thus destroy his research.
>
>Over the weekend, it looked as if they had finally managed it. The Sunday Times suggested that Mr
>Wakefield's original Lancet paper in 1998, which first indicated such links, was a scandalous
>manipulation of the evidence.
>
>The report claimed Mr Wakefield had failed to tell the Lancet he had also received legal aid funds
>to carry out a separate study, as part of the legal case being brought by parents of autistic
>children against the MMR manufacturers. To make matters even worse, it alleged, some of the
>children in the Lancet paper were involved in the court case. The Lancet study was therefore
>fatally compromised, since the parents had stood to gain financially if Mr Wakefield's researches
>had enabled them to claim compensation.
>
>No sooner did the story appear than the Health Secretary Dr John Reid demanded an urgent inquiry.
>However, upon examination the picture significantly changes. The Sunday Times originally made a
>series of claims against Mr Wakefield, which were all actually rejected by the Lancet except for
>the conflict of interest. But when one looks at the facts, this too begins to look a bit different.
>
>Mr Wakefield's legal aid-funded study was commissioned by solicitor Richard Barr, who had been
>approached by parents of children sick with autism and bowel disease who wanted to take legal
>action against the manufacturers of
>MMR. Mr Barr wanted to know whether there was clinical evidence to support such a case. So he asked
> Mr Wakefield to look at possible links between measles virus and bowel disease.
>
>The Sunday Times report claimed that four or five of the 12 children in the entirely separate
>Lancet study were part of this legal action. But their parents only decided to go to court after
>they had been accepted for treatment by Mr Wakefield's team at London's Royal Free hospital.
>
>The implication that they were selected because they were litigants with a financial interest in
>the results of the clinical examination is grotesque. All twelve of them were referred through
>normal NHS processes, either from doctors' recommendations or after desperate parents, having heard
>on the grapevine of Mr Wakefield's unusual sympathy towards these problems, had contacted him of
>their own volition. It was only subsequently that a few of them became part of the legal case.
>
>So the two Wakefield studies were entirely separate, with no cross over. True, the Lancet editor
>has said the second study should have been disclosed to avoid the 'perception' of a conflict of
>interest, and that had he known of its existence, he wouldn't have published Mr Wakefield's paper
>which was 'fatally flawed' as a result.
>
>But surely Mr Wakefield is being accused of a conflict of interest which did not occur at the time,
>in order to create the false impression that he and his colleagues deliberately skewed their
>selection of children for investigation in the Lancet exercise to support a crack-brained theory.
>Surely, he is being damned by the misleading application of hindsight, which has seriously
>misrepresented what happened. In other words, this appears to be nothing other than a smear.
>
>It is also a smear whose timing should raise a few eyebrows. For the Legal Services Commission has
>now cut off legal aid funding for the parents, which threatens to stop the case altogether. It
>just so happened that Mr Barr applied for judicial review of that decision a week ago, and
>judgment has been reserved. So this smear looks very like an attempt to influence the court and
>ensure the case dies.
>
>And make no mistake, the stakes could not be higher. The drug companies, the government and the
>medical establishment have every reason to fear this case going ahead.
>
>For although Mr Wakefield is the focus of the frenzy, many other pieces of evidence suggest that
>concern over the vaccine is by no means confined to one possibly obsessive doctor. Although the
>vast majority of children clearly have no adverse reaction whatever from the MMR jab, the number of
>families with a very different story to tell indicate that, for a small proportion of children,
>something worrying may be happening.
>
>What is so striking is the sheer volume of parents, not just in Britain but in America and other
>countries, who tell the same story of children who were developing normally - often with videos to
>prove it - only to stop developing and start suffering bowel disease after the MMR jab.
>
>Moreover, vaccine-strain measles virus has been found in the gut of some children with autism and
>bowel disease. Earlier this month Dr Jeff Bradstreet, a US autism researcher, presented evidence to
>the Institute of Medicine in Washington showing measles virus in the cerebral-spinal fluid of three
>children with autism and bowel disease.
>
>This virus most definitely should not be there; and the question is how it got there in children
>who had been vaccinated against measles. None of this proves MMR causes either bowel disease or
>autism; but it certainly indicates a cause for concern.
>
>The government insists, however, that research overwhelmingly shows the vaccine is safe. But this
>is not so. The research in question investigates patterns of disease based on medical records. But
>this is unlikely to get to the bottom of the issue, since countless parents have said doctors not
>only failed to diagnose autism or bowel disease in their children but dismissed out of hand the
>parents' reports that the problems seemed to start with the triple jab.
>
>In any event, these studies do not prove MMR is safe. They say there is no proof it is not safe, a
>very different matter. The official misrepresentation of these conclusions is one of the most
>worrying things about this controversy. This is particularly so since the government had introduced
>the first type of MMR vaccine in 1989 - which it had to withdraw three years later because it was
>shown to cause aseptic meningitis - even though it knew at the time that Canada had already
>withdrawn it because it was found to be unsafe.
>
>And as for conflicts of interest, what about the many scientists on the government's vaccine safety
>bodies who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies?
>
>Certainly, it is extremely worrying if parents are refusing to vaccinate their children against
>measles, mumps and rubella, with the dangers they pose of serious illness or even death. But not
>only does the government refuse to allow the use of less worrying single jabs - it also refuses to
>do the one thing that could settle this matter one way or the other.
>
>Instead of calling for an inquiry into Mr Wakefield and dismissing parents' concerns with such
>contempt, it should commission an independent, clinical investigation of affected children. Only
>then will we be able to judge who in this wretched story is actually right, and only then will all
>children get the vaccinations they need.
>
>
>
>

>Subject: Re: The smearing of Andrew Wakefield
>From: "Jeff" kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com
>Date: 2/25/2004 4:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c1i503$fgr@library2.airnews.net>
>
>"john" <whaleto@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:<1ad65102.0402250027.1eccb51d@posting.google.com>...
>> When will these pharma muppets like Brian Deer realise that attacking someone with Wakefields
>> integrity is like feeding the flames of truth.
>
>Really? Who is the quack-puppet here? Wakefield got caught with his hand in the money till. What's
>good for the goose is good for the gander.
>
>You moake the standards, yet your guy doesn't live up to them.
>
>Jeff

What a hoot. It is noted you made no comments from the previous posts here.

You guys have been doing it for years.

Jan

A repost. IT IS HONEST TO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST

From: Tsu Dho Nimh (abacaxi@hotmail.com) Subject: Re: How Many Vaccines & At what Age? View:
Complete Thread (80 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date: 2002-06-18
07:20:41 PST

jdrew63929@aol.com (Jan) wrote:

>1. That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these
> decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.> (could this possible have a bearing
> on HOW they vote,,,,,TDN??)

***FYI - people tend to invest in industries they know about. It's not surprising that medical
people invest in medical stocks rather than Schlumberger or AOL-Time Warner. ****

The fastest way to send the stock of a company into the toilet is to release a product that doesn't
work, or a product that is dangerous when used as prescribed. I'm sure any major shareholder (and
you have no evidence that anyone owns a significant amount of stock) knows this.

It's common in the semiconductor industry for engineers to own stock in their companies, and it's
also common for those engineers to be on standards boards making decisions about standards that
affect the entire industry, including consumers and the competition. Is this wrong too?

>***3. That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the
>rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.
>
>( Is this honest, TDN??)****

****Yes, it's honest.****

They informed the comittee of the potential conflict of interest before voting. Dishonest would
have been concealing their interest in the product before voting on its fate.

How about those members that own stock in the *competitors* of the product under discussion (in
this instance, the makers of IV fluids used to treat rotavirus dehydration, or stock in the
hospitals the infants are treated in)? Should they recuse themselves because they stand to profit
from suppressing a product? Conflict of interest works both ways.

>4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting,
> two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary
> voting members who all voted to license the product. ( do you wonder why, TDN??)

Geee ... board members missing a meeting. How suspicious.

Because the evidence it worked was pretty compelling. And the evidence it works is still
compelling. Compelling enough that India is beginning production soon because they lose thousands
of infants each year to rotavirus.

>5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a
> year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every
> member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. (Same questions, TDN)

Has any member of the comittee ever CONCEALED their affiliation or stock holdings?

How about those members that own stock in the competitors of the product under discussion? Should
they recuse themselves because they stand to profit from suppressing a product?

Who would be left to vote?

>6. (snip) no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the
childhood
>immunization schedule.

Are you sure that EVERY member of the CDC advisory comittee is childless? Last I looked, celibacy
was not a prerequisite.

> The FDA’s committee only has one public member.
> (Should parents be a part of this commitee, TDN??)

Parents are a part of the committee ... and part of the
research teams too. Just not "parents" as you define them.

When I worked in hospitals that did field trials for various pharmaceutical and medical device
manufacturers, one of the questions we were asked was: "If your ____ was in hospital, and you knew
this ____ was going to be used during their care, how would you feel about it?"

>These are just a few of the problems we found. Specific examples of this include:
>
>Dr. John Modlin—He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in
> February 1998. He participated in the FDA’s committee
as
>well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines,
valued
>at $26,000.

That's 500 or so shares, worth $26,000 in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares
and trades 5-7 million shares a day. I bet he owns/ed similar amounts of the competitors of
Merck as well.

>He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the
>Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s
>rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for
>Children program. It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his
>vaccine manufacturer stock. (WHY do you suppose he voted YES to all eight, TDN??)

Because he thought it was a good idea. Preventing 50,000 or more infants from hospitalizations and
a 50-100 deaths each year does sound like a good idea. I've seen the initial reports: I would have
voted the same way.

> At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a
> rotavirus vaccine

I found several ... and he is not in a position to profit personally from the patents, despite
having his name on the paperwork. It appears that the Children's Hospital and the Wistar Institute
are the actual owners ... a children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical
research facility.

www.chop.edu www.wistar.upenn.edu/about_wistar/history.html

5,750,109 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy & Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

5,626,851 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

6,113,910 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

6,290,968 Assignee: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Wistar Institute of
Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA)

>and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine.

Merck is GIVING him grant money to develop the vaccine when the owners of the vaccine patent are a
children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical research facility? What
shocking news!

>He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and
>teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and
>voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus
>vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program. ( piad by pharmaceurical industry,, does this
>tell you anything, TDN??)

I've worked on projects where my salary came from a pharmaceutical company. No more shocking than
Ford paying a racecar driver to make public appearances, or Revlon paying a supermodel.

>Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in
> Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver. (WHY was she granted a full waiver,
> TDN??)

That's about 400 shares ... in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares and trades
5-7 million shares a day. Yes, she's a major stockholder, really major.

And how much stock in Merck's competitors did she own? How much stock in companies that make IV
fluids, for example.

Look at the math: which company makes more money off a child? the one that sells $5 worth of
vaccine or the one that sells $500+ in IV fluids, plus $$$ in testing reagents for every case of
rotavirus that is admitted. If you want conflict of interest, look at who holds stock in
Pedialyte!

>Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on behalf of the American
> Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA’s committee, has extensive ties to
> the pharmaceutical industry, including having solicited and received start up funds from
> industry for his Vaccine Center.
As
>a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the opinions of the
>organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts
to
>be offering his personal opinion as well. ( Any question for this, TDN??)

OK ... Halsey has a personal opinion. We all do. And he's apparently clearly identifying which hat
he's wearing when he speaks (according to the transcripts).

>Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000
of
>stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer. He also is a paid member of the
board
>of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of stock.

>This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was granted.

>To the FDA’s credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because
he
>holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.

I checked the USPTO database, and Greengberg does NOT appear as the owner of a patent on any
rotavirus *vaccine*. He DID patent a couple of methods for selecting rotavirus for vaccine
production, but he is not in a position to profit from them.

Note that the OWNER of both of the patents is YOU! Yes, Jan, YOU as a citizen of the USA are the
part-owner of a patent for a process used in vaccine production! How does that make you feel to
know you now have a vested interest in vaccines that is as great as that of the doctors you have
been griping about?

4,571,385 Genetic reassortment of rotaviruses for production of vaccines and vaccine precursors
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health (Washington, DC)

4,341,870 Cultivatable human rotavirus type 2 Assignee: The United States of America as represented
by the Secretary of the Department of Health (Washington, DC)

>( well, well, why was he excluded, TDN??)

I haven't a clue. Was he "excluded" or did he recuse himself?

>How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work
of
>the CDC advisory committee is done in “working groups� that meet behind closed doors, out of
>the public eye?

I personally am quite confident.

Does the public have enough "eyes"? And is the public ready for the sight of "vigorous
participation". Working groups can get vehement as they discuss issues, and the words "hammered
out a conclusion" are close to literal sometimes.

>Members who can’t vote in the full committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work
>on the same issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny.

Peer scrutiny is much more effective. The general public doesn't know enough about the technology
or the issues to know when someone is blowing smoke and playing to the audience. Take away the
audience and you have to impress your fellow scientists with hard facts.

>I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who participated in the working
>group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus
>vaccines.
>
>(see anything appalling there, TDN??)

No. You yourself are one of the owners of patents on rotavirus vaccine.

>How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug Administration when the
>chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of
>vaccines?
>
>( can you answer this, TDN??)

How much stock? And in which companies? And are the companies competitors?

>How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so
>few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted.

If you got rid of everyone who had ever worked for, recieved grant money from, or held stock in a
pharmaceutical company ... the talent pool would be damned slim. And there are truly few American
experts in any field.

>It almost appears that there is a “old boys network� of
Note the weasel words: "almost appears"

>Some of these individuals serve for more than four years. We found one instance where an individual
>served for sixteen years continually on the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this
>country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years?

Maybe of the 700,000 physicians they were among the top dozen or so with the background to do the
job. I'd hate to have the average family care physician sitting on a board about vaccione
technology or cardiac drugs ... they didn't get enough classes in that area.

Maybe no one else wanted the job? Committee work takes a lot of time and effort. How many of the
700,000 physicians can take hours a day to read through all the reports. Committee members tend to
be high-ranking professors, or senior staff in institutions and it's part of their job to read
this stuff.

>It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services
has
>become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on conflicts of interest and
>committee management. If the law is too loose, we need to change it. If the agencies aren’t doing
>their job, they need to be held accountable. That’s the purpose of this hearing, to try to
>determine what needs to be done.
>
>(Is the law to loose, TEN??)

I don't think so. This author is throwing out a lot of misleading factoids with nothing concrete
to back up the speculations. Has anyone found a smoking gun memo? Is there a pattern of voting
that indicates the various committees are placing financial rewards above their scientific
integrity?

>Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to self-interest than
>other people?

There are various kinds of "self-interest", and the reputation for doing good research counts way
more for most scientists than money. They are driven to succeed, but their idea of success is not
the same as the typical American consumer's idea.

>(please answer this, TDN!)

Can you name scientists that REALLY sold out who were not scorned by their peers for fudging
the research?

>Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of vaccine development and
>implementation is essential. The Department of Health and
Human
>Services has a responsibility to the American public to ensure the integrity
of
>this process by working diligently to appoint individuals that are totally without financial ties
>to the vaccine industry to serve on these and all vaccine-related panels.

Interesting ... if total lack of financial ties to industry is important on these comittees, why
is it not equally important that politicians be without financial ties to ALL industries. After
all, they make laws that mandate what industries can and can't do. What industries contribute to
Burton's campaign funds?

>(is intregrity important, TDN??)

Yes, and it's sadly lacking when politicians accept money form the very industries they write
laws about.

>No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding vaccines that may be
>mandated for use should be participating in the
discussion
>or policy making for vaccines.

May I remind you that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, including you, are the assigned owners of many patents
having to do with vaccines. They stand to profit form any income from licensing the technology.

>polluted and the public trust has been violated. I intend to find out if the individuals who have
>made these recommendations that effect every child in
this
>country and around the world, stood to gain financially and professionally
from
>the decisions of the committees they served on.

Well, he says he intends to find out ... what has he managed to discover? Where are the smoking
guns and the secret bank accounts?

Tsu Dho Nimh

--