Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

  • Thread starter Mark Probert-February 23, 2004
  • Start date



M

Mark Probert-February 23, 2004

Guest
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard


The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....
 
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
>
>
> The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when

he
> produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
> he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
> £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....


Try £55,000 = around $102,000US (the exchange rate is £1 = $1.86US)
according to today's New York Times.
>
> Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
> point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> this gem a secret....


That's ok. Don't you know his motivation is honorable? So what if he has
conflicts of interest?

If he suits John's purpose, it doesn't matter.

Unless what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Jeff
 
>Subject: Re: Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...
>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
>Date: 2/24/2004 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>

>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
>>
>>
>> The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when

>he
>> produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
>> he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
>> £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

>
>Try £55,000 = around $102,000US (the exchange rate is £1 = $1.86US)
>according to today's New York Times.
>>
>> Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
>> point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
>> this gem a secret....

>
>That's ok. Don't you know his motivation is honorable? So what if he has
>conflicts of interest?
>
>If he suits John's purpose, it doesn't matter.
>
>Unless what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
>
>Jeff


Touche.

A repost. IT IS HONEST TO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST

From: Tsu Dho Nimh ([email protected])
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


[email protected] (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

--
 
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >

>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
> >
> >
> > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest

when
> he
> > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because
> > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
> > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

>
> Try £55,000 = around $102,000US (the exchange rate is £1 = $1.86US)
> according to today's New York Times.


Capitalist.

Ouch..it is worse than I thought. I wonder what a doctor in Wakefiled's
poisiton was paid while he was working?

> > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,

instead,
> > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> > this gem a secret....

>
> That's ok. Don't you know his motivation is honorable? So what if he has
> conflicts of interest?


Yes, that is one of the anti-vac lairs defenses. IOW if they agree with the
person, then it does not matter if the money came from Satan herself.

> If he suits John's purpose, it doesn't matter.
>
> Unless what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
>
>
> The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when he
> produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
> he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
>
> £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....
>
> Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
> point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> this gem a secret....


I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees? Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
problem.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>

wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
> >
> >
> > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest

when he
> > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because
> > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
> >
> > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....
> >
> > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,

instead,
> > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> > this gem a secret....

>
> I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.
>
> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
> not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
> when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> and potentially conflicting goals.
>
> Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
> I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
> funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
> those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
> keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
> funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
> his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
> of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
> for.
>
> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees? Then there is a
> conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
> problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
> But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> problem.
>
> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
> or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
> serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.
>
> For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> report in online at

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
 
oops...hit that send button too fast...


"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]>

wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
> >
> >
> > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest

when he
> > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because
> > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
> >
> > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....
> >
> > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,

instead,
> > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> > this gem a secret....

>
> I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.


I will write slowly, as you seemed to have missed my point....

The anti-vac liars, John Scudamore of the whale.to website being the most
notorious, along with Roger, et al, have bleated and brayed a cacophony of
noise whenever anyone who is pro-vaccine, i.e., pro-child health, has any
form of an apparent conflict of interest, even though they may have
disclosed it.

These same folks have held Wakefield, et al, up as saints, pure as the
driven snow...to be beleived without question...

Now, along came this story about how Wakefield was financed by a group of
lawyers who stood to make some evil money from the outcome of the class
action suit they brought...

And, the anti-vac lairs are fuming and fussing, whining and whinneying, that
it just ain't right. Wakefield is a saint, and the money di dnot affect the
outcome...

Horseshit.

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for the initial study,
and stood to be paid for his testimony.

And they just cannot stand it.

I hope I am clear.

> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> him to do it for free?


Of course not. Just like I do not expect other researchers to do it for
free. I am merely commenting on the duplicity of the anti-vac liars and
others.

Simply accepting funding for research does
> not constitute a conflict of interest.


True. But, sometimes, the source of said funds says a lot. Here, it was the
lawyers who stood to make gadzillions of pounds if he found a link. He then
goes on to testify for more gadzillions of pounds.

Conflict of interest occurs
> when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> and potentially conflicting goals.


OK, then he if does not have a conflict of interest he is nothing mor ethan
a medical *****.

> Was he hiding the source of his funding?


Seems to be so. It is just being revealed now, years after his study was
first published.

That would be a problem, but
> I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
> funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
> those who were reporting his results.


Nice weasel. Pro-vaccine researchers are held to this high standard by the
anti-vac liars. Turnabout...

If Wakefield did, as you claim,
> keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
> funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
> his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
> of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
> for.


Not really. Th ebuyers of his research stood to make money based on his
outcome, and he stood to make more.

> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?


There are small miracles.

Then there is a
> conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
> problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
> But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> problem.


Sometimes, it is. Here, with this revalation, his value as an expert witness
is shot.

> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
> or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
> serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.


Check out his history, as you seem not to know about him.

> For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> report in online at

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
 
On 25 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0800, [email protected] (abacus) wrote:

> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
> not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
> when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> and potentially conflicting goals.


As I understand it, he was particially funded by a group of
what would in the US be referred to as medical malpractice lawyers,
and did not declare that when submitting a paper claiming to find a
cause for autism (which cause would be eminently litigatable).

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the
Lancet article suggested, that specific article would not have been
accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain credulity to accept
that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard

> > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of

interest when he
> > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because
> > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.


> > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....


> > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,

instead,
> > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield

kept
> > this gem a secret....


> I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.


> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
> not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
> when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> and potentially conflicting goals.


> Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
> I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
> funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
> those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
> keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
> funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
> his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
> of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
> for.


As I understand it, there are *two* Wakefield studies, one of which was
underwritten by a group of attorneys representing kids allegedly damaged
by the MMR vaccine and the other not. (I don't know who, if anyone
other than Wakefield himself/his university, funded this study.)
Presumably Wakefield would benefit by receiving payment for his "expert"
testimony when the cases go (went?) to court. (I imagine he'd receive a
flat fee, i.e., one not contingent on the amount(s) awarded to the
plaintiffs, should they prevail.) The fact that he received such
funding should have been disclosed alongside *both* studies, although it
is certainly less damning if the non-attorney-funded study took place
first.

Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a loooong way to
go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees realized by
James Cherry:

"Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the University of
California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized pertussis expert who
has
been a leader on advisory committees that help frame immunization policy
for
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All physicians are aware that
pertussis occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be
associated with permanent sequellae [complications caused by the
vaccine] or even death." But by 1990, Cherry had changed his mind,
proclaiming in the Journal of the American Medical Association that
severe brain damage caused by pertussis vaccine was nothing but "a
myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in
unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988
through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research,
and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for
pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and
UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits
brought against the companies." (Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December
1996. The entire article is available at
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)

> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?


Not to my knowledge. (LOL)

Then there is a
> conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
> problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
> But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> problem.


> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
> or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
> serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.


> For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> report in online at

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

Interesting...thanks!
 
abacus wrote:
>
> I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.
>
> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?


No, it is that this while time, while writing and debating
the issue (often in forums that require this type of
disclosure), he has never mentioned it.
 
Mark Probert-February 25, 2004 wrote:
>
> Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for

the initial
> study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.
>


This is the bogger point - it really was more than just
funding a study. He stood to be made wealthy through paid
testimony if he found one thing and to get nothing if he
found another. That needed to be disclosed.

This new information puts the shoddy science and his active
campaigning for publicity in a while new light. I alsways
just figured he was greedy for notariety. Now I see that he
is just greedy.

--
CBI, MD
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nIc%[email protected]...
> Mark Probert-February 25, 2004 wrote:
> >
> > Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for

> the initial
> > study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.
> >

>
> This is the bogger point - it really was more than just
> funding a study. He stood to be made wealthy through paid
> testimony if he found one thing and to get nothing if he
> found another. That needed to be disclosed.
>
> This new information puts the shoddy science and his active
> campaigning for publicity in a while new light. I alsways
> just figured he was greedy for notariety. Now I see that he
> is just greedy.


Using the anti-vac line, just follow the money...and I was confident that
one day it would come out. He was just too attached to his theory for any
other conclusion to make sense.
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

> [email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > >

>

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
>
> > > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of

> interest when he
> > > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

> because
> > > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

>
> > > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

>
> > > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,

> instead,
> > > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield

> kept
> > > this gem a secret....

>
> > I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

>
> > Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> > him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
> > not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
> > when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> > and potentially conflicting goals.

>
> > Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
> > I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
> > funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
> > those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
> > keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
> > funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
> > his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
> > of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
> > for.

>
> As I understand it, there are *two* Wakefield studies, one of which was
> underwritten by a group of attorneys representing kids allegedly damaged
> by the MMR vaccine and the other not. (I don't know who, if anyone
> other than Wakefield himself/his university, funded this study.)
> Presumably Wakefield would benefit by receiving payment for his "expert"
> testimony when the cases go (went?) to court. (I imagine he'd receive a
> flat fee, i.e., one not contingent on the amount(s) awarded to the
> plaintiffs, should they prevail.)


I should hope not. IIRC, that would break the legal canons of ethics, and
destroy any of his credibility that he had remaining.

The fact that he received such
> funding should have been disclosed alongside *both* studies, although it
> is certainly less damning if the non-attorney-funded study took place
> first.


A fair assessment.

> Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a loooong way to
> go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees realized by
> James Cherry:


JG, it is not the funding, but the lack of disclosure, and who was paying
that is in issue. I expect experts to be paid.

> "Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the University of
> California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized pertussis expert who
> has
> been a leader on advisory committees that help frame immunization policy
> for
> the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
> Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All physicians are aware that
> pertussis occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be
> associated with permanent sequellae [complications caused by the
> vaccine] or even death." But by 1990, Cherry had changed his mind,
> proclaiming in the Journal of the American Medical Association that
> severe brain damage caused by pertussis vaccine was nothing but "a
> myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in
> unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988
> through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research,
> and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for
> pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and
> UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits
> brought against the companies." (Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December
> 1996. The entire article is available at
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)


Well, those are well respected sources.

However, assuming that they are correct, then the money he recevied is a
matter of public record. Not so, until now, with Wakefield.

> > Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

>
> Not to my knowledge. (LOL)


Small miracles.

> Then there is a
> > conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
> > problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
> > But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> > potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> > problem.

>
> > Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
> > or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
> > serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> > suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

>
> > For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> > the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> > check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> > earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> > report in online at

> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
>
> Interesting...thanks!
>
>
 
[email protected] (abacus) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
> >
> >
> > The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when he
> > produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
> > he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
> >
> > £55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....
> >
> > Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
> > point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
> > this gem a secret....

>
> I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.
>
> Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?


No

> Do you expect
> him to do it for free?


No

> Simply accepting funding for research does
> not constitute a conflict of interest.


No

> Conflict of interest occurs
> when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> and potentially conflicting goals.


No

> Was he hiding the source of his funding?


YES

> That would be a problem, but
> I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
> funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
> those who were reporting his results.


It was not disclosed to the journal. Generally, this is a
requirement.

> If Wakefield did, as you claim,
> keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
> funding sources should accompany research results)


They generally do - the publishers of research articles, that is.

> and it would make
> his results suspect,


His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
disclosed.

> but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
> of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
> for.


Why?

> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?


Why does this matter?

> Then there is a
> conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
> problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.


DUH.

> But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> problem.


It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

> Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
> or entirely of people with the same bias as he has?


So, who makes the policy?

"In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."

ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
happens across government on a regular basis.

> This would be a
> serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.


Why?

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.

> For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html


The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.

Back to the old tricks?

js
 
JG wrote:
> Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a

loooong way to
> go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees

realized by
> James Cherry:


First of all - yuor figures below confuse money to fund
reseach, from which the investigator can draw part of his
salary but mostly is spent doing the study, with money that
is completely kept by the researcher.

The 6 figure amounts do not go directly to the researcher.
The fees for testimony do. Biomedical research s typically
funded in 5 or 6 figure amouints so what he has recived is
typically what is needed - ti si not at all inflated. The
$35K for 15 suits seems about the normal amount (about $2000
per suit). The 15 suits is nothing compared tot he hundreds
or thousands that Wakefield was lining up to recieve.

Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
arrangements? Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?



> "Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the

University of
> California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized

pertussis expert who
> has
> been a leader on advisory committees that help frame

immunization
> policy for
> the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for

Disease
> Control. Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All

physicians are
> aware that pertussis occasionally produces severe

reactions and that
> these may be associated with permanent sequellae

[complications
> caused by the vaccine] or even death." But by 1990,

Cherry had
> changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the

American Medical
> Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis

vaccine was
> nothing but "a myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got

about
> $400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts"

from Lederle.
> From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle

for
> pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA

received
> $654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research.

Additionally, drug
> manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his

testimony as an
> expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the

companies."
> (Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December 1996. The entire

article is
> available at

http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)


The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
conspiracy site that hasn't been discredited on a daily
basis in this forum?

--
CBI, MD
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (abacus) wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard

[...]

> His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
> to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
> motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
> vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
> case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
> disclosed.


You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research. I've seen no evidence of "poor
science"; presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

[...]

> It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
> readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
> the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.


You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "conflict of
interest," Jonathan. A conflict of interest is NOT quashed by mere
disclosure of its existence! For whom do you think such disclosures are
intended? Not the researcher. Not the individual or group with whom
he/she has the association that gives rise to the conflict of interest.
They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information (e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that, of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

[...]

> Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
> completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
> legal action.


As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys. You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs' case.
(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest? Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

[...]
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0vv%[email protected]...
> JG wrote:
> > Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a

> loooong way to
> > go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees

> realized by
> > James Cherry:


> First of all - yuor figures below confuse money to fund
> reseach, from which the investigator can draw part of his
> salary but mostly is spent doing the study, with money that
> is completely kept by the researcher.


Hmmm... I think they're pretty straightforward, myself. (Just what do
you think "unrestricted grants" means? Or "gifts"? The amount received
for *research* is listed separately from this amount.) Note, too, that
the money he (personally) received for research is listed separately
from that received by his institution (UCLA).

[...]

> Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
> arrangements?


I don't know, did he? You're the one, no doubt, with better access to
the journals in which his articles dealing with pertussis vaccination
have been published.

Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
> a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
> that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?


IMO, yes; he's the "Number One Fan" (promoter) of adult (pertussis)
vaccination.

> > "Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the

> University of
> > California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized

> pertussis expert who
> > has
> > been a leader on advisory committees that help frame

> immunization
> > policy for
> > the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for

> Disease
> > Control. Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All

> physicians are
> > aware that pertussis occasionally produces severe

> reactions and that
> > these may be associated with permanent sequellae

> [complications
> > caused by the vaccine] or even death." But by 1990,

> Cherry had
> > changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the

> American Medical
> > Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis

> vaccine was
> > nothing but "a myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got

> about
> > $400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts"

> from Lederle.
> > From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle

> for
> > pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA

> received
> > $654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research.

> Additionally, drug
> > manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his

> testimony as an
> > expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the

> companies."
> > (Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December 1996. The entire

> article is
> > available at

> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
> > http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)

>
> The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
> conspiracy site that hasn't been discredited on a daily
> basis in this forum?
>
> --
> CBI, MD
>
>
>
 
Kathy Cole <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0800, [email protected] (abacus) wrote:
>
> > Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
> > him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
> > not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
> > when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
> > and potentially conflicting goals.

>
> As I understand it, he was particially funded by a group of
> what would in the US be referred to as medical malpractice lawyers,
> and did not declare that when submitting a paper claiming to find a
> cause for autism (which cause would be eminently litigatable).
>
> At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the
> Lancet article suggested, that specific article would not have been
> accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain credulity to accept
> that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
> credulity.


If this is the case, then I agree. It doesn't just strain credulity,
it breaks it. Further, if he is sincere in that claim, that he didn't
realize he needed to do so, that just makes his credibility as a
legimate researcher even more suspect.
 
>From: "CBI" [email protected]
>Date: 2/26/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <0vv%[email protected]>


<snip>

>http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
>> http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)

>
>The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
>conspiracy site that hasn't been

discredited on a daily
>basis in this forum?


Translation:

The sites are outside of organized medicine.

Those who discredit them are organized medicine brainwashed members, who over
look the vested interest from the CDC and FDA, and say that is honest.

Jan
 
[email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (abacus) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


> > But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
> > potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
> > problem.

>
> It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
> readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
> the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.


Sir, I must respectfully disagree with this position. Yes, it is
necessary that such associations be disclosed, but such disclosures
do not completely mitigate the effects of such conflicts of interest.

> "In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
> federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
> of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."
>
> ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
> the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
> happens across government on a regular basis.
>
> > This would be a
> > serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
> > suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

>
> Why?


If all members of a committee are biased in a common direction, it is
to be expected that the discussion, recommendations, and decisions
made by such a committee will be affected by that bias.

> Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
> completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
> legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
> data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.
>
> > For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
> > the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
> > check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
> > earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
> > report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

>
> The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
> is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
> be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
> the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.
>
> Back to the old tricks?
>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It borders on a personal attack,
but no matter. While I do enjoy vigorous debate about many varied
subjects, I'm afraid that I have not the time or inclination to
indulge my taste for a lengthy discussion right now. I'll pop in
again when I get the chace.