3 of 4 Authors in Medical Journals Have Conflicts of Interest



[email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > CBI seems to think that it all comes from local school
> > boards, or something like that. (He is too incoherent to
> > tell for sure what he thinks.)
>
> I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction
> between Federal and local was quite clear. You do
> realize there is no Federal vaccination law or
> regulation for school attendance, right? The only
> possible exception would be Federal schools, and there
> are only about 50 or 60 of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBI? Coherent? Get real!

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

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

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

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

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

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

(WordNet 1.6, Princeton University)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the CDC
> > doesn't make regulations or laws

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

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

--or to pass legislation.

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

--or with the legislature itself.

[...]
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many
> > > of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written by
> > > the ACIP?
> > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look in
> > the footer. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > schedule.htm#Printable
>
> Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one, by
> the ACIP:
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm

And titles like this one:

"Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP)"

Absolutely, no question. ACIP is charged with the
responsibility to provide recommendations to the CDC
regarding vaccine policy. That is their job Roger.

The CDCs job is to provide policy recommendations to
the states.

The states job is to implement through regulation policies
they feel appropriate for their state.

School boards and local health authorities are charged with
the responsibility to manage the implementation of the
regulations based on the states interpretation of the policy
put forth by the CDC based on input they recieve from a
variety of sources including the ACIP membership.

What part of this don't you understand?

In Rogers world, apparently Gilmartin calls Arnold to make
sure LA kids get shots.

js
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many
> > > of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written by
> > > the ACIP?
> > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look in
> > the footer. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > schedule.htm#Printable
>
> Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one, by
> the ACIP:
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm

And titles like this one:

"Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP)"

Absolutely, no question. ACIP is charged with the
responsibility to provide recommendations to the CDC
regarding vaccine policy. That is their job Roger.

The CDCs job is to provide policy recommendations to
the states.

The states job is to implement through regulation policies
they feel appropriate for their state.

School boards and local health authorities are charged with
the responsibility to manage the implementation of the
regulations based on the states interpretation of the policy
put forth by the CDC based on input they recieve from a
variety of sources including the ACIP membership.

What part of this don't you understand?

In Rogers world, apparently Gilmartin calls Arnold to make
sure LA kids get shots.

js
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in
> > message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > > CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
> > > > school boards, or something like that. (He is too
> > > > incoherent to tell for sure what he thinks.)
>
> > > I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction
> > > between Federal
> and
> > > local was quite clear. You do realize there is no
> > > Federal
> vaccination
> > > law or regulation for school attendance, right? The
> > > only possible exception would be Federal schools, and
> > > there are only about 50 or
> 60
> > > of them.
>
> CBI? Coherent? Get real!

You promised to killfile me. Well, that lasted all of
three days.

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

"1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local
school boards or boardsof health. They are largely composed
of elected officials and generally have done no research and
have no ties to pharmaceutical companies. There is no
potential for a conspiracy theory there so the anti-vacs
must look elswhere." Fine.

"It still is being set by local (not national) politicians
and not any government advisory committee or paid reseachers
(which is the whole point)."

And on and on. If you didn't figure it out that by local CBI
was refering to a dichotomy - national (federal) versus
local (state) then you just aren't reading for
comprehension.

And if that's all you have to base your argument, it pretty
much says it all.

> > Yeah, Roger has a mental block about comprehending
> > anything he does not want to accept. I'm sure it is a
> > defense mechanism that has saved his ego on many
> > occassions.
>
> ...And you have a propensity to (try to) twist and squirm
> your way out of your misstatements, frequently by tossing
> out ridiculous strawman arguments. Why not just admit it
> when you've erred and cut your losses?

Local versus Federal. I'm comfortable with it. And incase
you are wondering, the City of Baltimore does set policies
regarding vaccination - they don't set the schedule at the
state leel but they have local policies regarding process.
They come from the Baltimore's Department of Health.

> > The joke is that one of JG's favorite things to do is
> > to quote the dictionary. I'm sure she would not have
> > gone back and forth about the whole thing for several
> > posts without citing one if there was a citation to
> > prove her point. On the contrary, the m-w definition I
> > cited does not.
>
> You want a "dictionary definition," Chris? Okay, here are
> two for you:
>
> lo·cal adj.
> 1. a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular
> place: a local custom; the local slang.
> b. Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather
> than a larger area: state and local government.
> (American Heritage Dictionary of the English
> Language, 4th edition)
> =============================================
> local adj 1: relating to applicable to or concerned with a
> city or town or district rather than a larger area; "local
> taxes"; "local schools and churches"; "a local bus line";
> "local authorities"; "local streets and roads"; "local
> control"
>
> (WordNet 1.6, Princeton University)
>
> =============================================
>
> > > Absolutely. And no one disputes that the role and
> > > function of the ACIP is to provide technical, medical,
> > > and scientific advice to the CDC regarding vaccination
> > > policy. So, what is your problem?
>
> > His problem, as ludicrous as it is, is that non-
> > technical voices are not represented in this body. It is
> > been explained to him that his concerns are addressed
> > (or should be) by the politicos who actually make
> > decisions about putting the recommendations into law
>
> LOL! Look, Chris, I pointed out to you that even in your
> own state, the "decisions about putting the
> recommendations into law" are made by bureaucrats and
> other persons not elected to any office, not "politicos"
> (politicians).

Last I looked the Governor is an elected official.
Ultimately, executive branch appointees report to the
governor. Civil servants serve the politicos who are
elected. Anything they do has to be approved upstairs.
Anything the governor does has to be permitted by the
legislature. Last I looked, they are also elected officials.

> > ACIP doesn't make government policy, the CDC does.
>
> You're quibbling. Has the CDC *ever* recommended a vaccine
> against the advice of the ACIP? Has the CDC ever not
> recommended a vaccine that the ACIP endorsed?

How does this matter? But wait - JG - prove to me that every
ACIP recommendation was adopted by the CDC without change.
And then prove to me that every CDC public policy
recommendation was adopted by each of the 50 states.

> And the CDC
> > > doesn't make regulations or laws
>
> No one has said that they do! (Honestly, don't you think
> it's time to torch this strawman?)

ACIP makes recommendations CDC makes public policy at
the federal level States make regulations Local
governments implement

> - they recommend these policies to
> > > those who have the legislative authority to promulgate
> > > regulations.
>
> --or to pass legislation.

OK - so? That would make them politicians, not civil
servants.

> > > This authority rests with the states and typically
> > > with the
> Department
> > > of Health in the state.
>
> --or with the legislature itself.

Fine.

> [...]

So - ACIP doesn't make state government policy. ACIP doesn't
make Federal government policy. ACIP makes recommendations
to the CD who in turn makes Federal Government Policy
statements for consideration by the states.

Are we done yet?

js
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in
> > message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > > CBI seems to think that it all comes from local
> > > > school boards, or something like that. (He is too
> > > > incoherent to tell for sure what he thinks.)
>
> > > I find him to be quite coherent. His distinction
> > > between Federal
> and
> > > local was quite clear. You do realize there is no
> > > Federal
> vaccination
> > > law or regulation for school attendance, right? The
> > > only possible exception would be Federal schools, and
> > > there are only about 50 or
> 60
> > > of them.
>
> CBI? Coherent? Get real!

You promised to killfile me. Well, that lasted all of
three days.

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

"1) The requirement for vaccinations is usually set by local
school boards or boardsof health. They are largely composed
of elected officials and generally have done no research and
have no ties to pharmaceutical companies. There is no
potential for a conspiracy theory there so the anti-vacs
must look elswhere." Fine.

"It still is being set by local (not national) politicians
and not any government advisory committee or paid reseachers
(which is the whole point)."

And on and on. If you didn't figure it out that by local CBI
was refering to a dichotomy - national (federal) versus
local (state) then you just aren't reading for
comprehension.

And if that's all you have to base your argument, it pretty
much says it all.

> > Yeah, Roger has a mental block about comprehending
> > anything he does not want to accept. I'm sure it is a
> > defense mechanism that has saved his ego on many
> > occassions.
>
> ...And you have a propensity to (try to) twist and squirm
> your way out of your misstatements, frequently by tossing
> out ridiculous strawman arguments. Why not just admit it
> when you've erred and cut your losses?

Local versus Federal. I'm comfortable with it. And incase
you are wondering, the City of Baltimore does set policies
regarding vaccination - they don't set the schedule at the
state leel but they have local policies regarding process.
They come from the Baltimore's Department of Health.

> > The joke is that one of JG's favorite things to do is
> > to quote the dictionary. I'm sure she would not have
> > gone back and forth about the whole thing for several
> > posts without citing one if there was a citation to
> > prove her point. On the contrary, the m-w definition I
> > cited does not.
>
> You want a "dictionary definition," Chris? Okay, here are
> two for you:
>
> lo·cal adj.
> 1. a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular
> place: a local custom; the local slang.
> b. Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather
> than a larger area: state and local government.
> (American Heritage Dictionary of the English
> Language, 4th edition)
> =============================================
> local adj 1: relating to applicable to or concerned with a
> city or town or district rather than a larger area; "local
> taxes"; "local schools and churches"; "a local bus line";
> "local authorities"; "local streets and roads"; "local
> control"
>
> (WordNet 1.6, Princeton University)
>
> =============================================
>
> > > Absolutely. And no one disputes that the role and
> > > function of the ACIP is to provide technical, medical,
> > > and scientific advice to the CDC regarding vaccination
> > > policy. So, what is your problem?
>
> > His problem, as ludicrous as it is, is that non-
> > technical voices are not represented in this body. It is
> > been explained to him that his concerns are addressed
> > (or should be) by the politicos who actually make
> > decisions about putting the recommendations into law
>
> LOL! Look, Chris, I pointed out to you that even in your
> own state, the "decisions about putting the
> recommendations into law" are made by bureaucrats and
> other persons not elected to any office, not "politicos"
> (politicians).

Last I looked the Governor is an elected official.
Ultimately, executive branch appointees report to the
governor. Civil servants serve the politicos who are
elected. Anything they do has to be approved upstairs.
Anything the governor does has to be permitted by the
legislature. Last I looked, they are also elected officials.

> > ACIP doesn't make government policy, the CDC does.
>
> You're quibbling. Has the CDC *ever* recommended a vaccine
> against the advice of the ACIP? Has the CDC ever not
> recommended a vaccine that the ACIP endorsed?

How does this matter? But wait - JG - prove to me that every
ACIP recommendation was adopted by the CDC without change.
And then prove to me that every CDC public policy
recommendation was adopted by each of the 50 states.

> And the CDC
> > > doesn't make regulations or laws
>
> No one has said that they do! (Honestly, don't you think
> it's time to torch this strawman?)

ACIP makes recommendations CDC makes public policy at
the federal level States make regulations Local
governments implement

> - they recommend these policies to
> > > those who have the legislative authority to promulgate
> > > regulations.
>
> --or to pass legislation.

OK - so? That would make them politicians, not civil
servants.

> > > This authority rests with the states and typically
> > > with the
> Department
> > > of Health in the state.
>
> --or with the legislature itself.

Fine.

> [...]

So - ACIP doesn't make state government policy. ACIP doesn't
make Federal government policy. ACIP makes recommendations
to the CD who in turn makes Federal Government Policy
statements for consideration by the states.

Are we done yet?

js
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents. Many
> > > > of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them written
> > > > by the ACIP?
> > > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look in
> > > the footer. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > > schedule.htm#Printable
> > Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one, by
> > the ACIP:
> > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm
> And titles like this one: "Recommendations of the Advisory
> Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)" Absolutely, no
> question. ACIP is charged with the responsibility to
> provide recommendations to the CDC regarding vaccine
> policy. That is their job Roger. The CDCs job is to
> provide policy recommendations to the states.

And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.

All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee. You
keep disputing it, even after reading ACIP policy
statements. You are wrong.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents.
> > > > > Many of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them
> > > > > written by the ACIP?
> > > > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look
> > > > in the
footer.
> > > > http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > > > schedule.htm#Printable
> > > Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one,
> > > by the ACIP:
> > > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm
> > And titles like this one: "Recommendations of the
> > Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)"
> > Absolutely, no question. ACIP is charged with the
> > responsibility to provide recommendations to the CDC
> > regarding vaccine policy. That
is
> > their job Roger. The CDCs job is to provide policy
> > recommendations to the states.

> And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.

> All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee. You
> keep disputing it, even after reading ACIP policy
> statements. You are wrong.

He certainly is! The ACIP's own charter states that the HHS
Secretary will follow--implement--ACIP advice regarding "the
purchase, delivery, and administration" of vaccines for kids
who qualify for the "Vaccines for Children Program." IOW,
the CDC isn't even "in the loop"! For every step he and CBI
try to take forward, they manage to fall two steps back. <g
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.
> > All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee. You
> > keep disputing it, even after reading ACIP policy
> > statements. You are wrong.
> He certainly is! The ACIP's own charter states that the
> HHS Secretary will follow--implement--ACIP advice
> regarding "the purchase, delivery, and administration" of
> vaccines for kids who qualify for the "Vaccines for
> Children Program." IOW, the CDC isn't even "in the loop"!
> For every step he and CBI try to take forward, they manage
> to fall two steps back.

For one of the vaccines (I've forgotten which one), the ACIP
committee meeting minutes reported that there were members
who wanted to recommend the vaccine just because it would
cause the feds to pay for it!

You have a lot of patience with these morons. CBI won't
understand no matter how many times you explain it. I don't
know what Jonathan's problem is.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents.
> > > > > Many of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them
> > > > > written by the ACIP?
> > > > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look
> > > > in the footer. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > > > schedule.htm#Printable
> > > Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one,
> > > by the ACIP:
> > > http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4909a1.htm
> > And titles like this one: "Recommendations of the
> > Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)"
> > Absolutely, no question. ACIP is charged with the
> > responsibility to provide recommendations to the CDC
> > regarding vaccine policy. That is their job Roger. The
> > CDCs job is to provide policy recommendations to the
> > states.
>
> And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.

No, ACIP wrote the recommendation - it doesn't become
governemnt policy until the CDC says it is and at that time
it is the CDCs government policy. ACIP does not write
government policy.

AAP AAPS and a varieyt of others write policy statements too
- but that doesn't make them government policy, Roger.

> All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee. You
> keep disputing it, even after reading ACIP policy
> statements. You are wrong.

No, you said they were a government policy committee.

"But I do think that members of gubmnt policy committees
should stick to people without blatant biases..."

"I might have said that the CDC/ACIP sets vaccine policy.
That is quite correct,"

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

"No, but CDC policies are public policies."

"Doesn't that give you a clue that the ACIP has something to
do with vaccine policy?"

"All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee."

Some massive weasle, Roger.

The ACIP does not write government immunization policy. ACIP
does not SET government immunization policy. Any more
discussion?

js
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > > > Now look at those CDC vaccine policy documents.
> > > > > > Many of them are at www.cdc.gov. Are any of them
> > > > > > written by the ACIP?
> > > > > Here you go, Roger - pull up the schedule and look
> > > > > in the
> footer.
> > > > > http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-
> > > > > schedule.htm#Printable
> > > > Yes, and the footnotes cites articles like this one,
> > > > by the ACIP: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrht-
> > > > ml/rr4909a1.htm
> > > And titles like this one: "Recommendations of the
> > > Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)"
> > > Absolutely, no question. ACIP is charged with the
> > > responsibility to provide recommendations to the CDC
> > > regarding vaccine policy. That
> is
> > > their job Roger. The CDCs job is to provide policy
> > > recommendations to the states.
>
> > And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.
>
> > All I said was that the ACIP was a policy committee. You
> > keep disputing it, even after reading ACIP policy
> > statements. You are wrong.
>
> He certainly is! The ACIP's own charter states that the
> HHS Secretary will follow--implement--ACIP advice
> regarding "the purchase, delivery, and administration" of
> vaccines for kids who qualify for the "Vaccines for
> Children Program." IOW, the CDC isn't even "in the loop"!
> For every step he and CBI try to take forward, they manage
> to fall two steps back.
> <g>

For someone too fed up to read my posts, you certainly are
doing a lot of arguing. Knock it off - you promised you
would killfile me - and that means you don't get to read
what I wrote. More importantly, you don't get to respond to
what I wrote.

js
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "JG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the
> > > policy. All I said was that the ACIP was a policy
> > > committee. You keep disputing it, even after reading
> > > ACIP policy statements. You are wrong.
> > He certainly is! The ACIP's own charter states that the
> > HHS Secretary will follow--implement--ACIP advice
> > regarding "the purchase, delivery, and administration"
> > of vaccines for kids who qualify for the "Vaccines for
> > Children Program." IOW, the CDC isn't even "in the
> > loop"! For every step he and CBI try to take forward,
> > they manage to fall two steps back.

"The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
consists of 15 experts in fields associated with
immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to

PROVIDE ADVICE AND GUIDANCE

to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the
most effective means to prevent vaccine-preventable
diseases."

The Committee

DEVELOPS WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS

for the routine administration of vaccines to the pediatric
and adult populations, along with schedules regarding the
appropriate periodicity, dosage, and contraindications
applicable to the vaccines. ACIP is the only entity in the
federal government which makes such recommendations.

The overall goals of the ACIP are to

PROVIDE ADVICE WHICH WILL ASSIST

the Department and the Nation in reducing the incidence of
vaccine preventable diseases and to increase the safe usage
of vaccines and related biological products.
-------

The Charter:

The Secretary, and by delegation the Director, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Section
311 and Section 317 of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 243 and 42 U.S.C. 247b, to assist States
and their political subdivisions in the prevention and
control of communicable diseases; to advise several States
on matters relating to the preservation and improvement of
the public's health; and to make grants to States and, in
consultation with the State health authorities, to agencies
and political subdivisions of States to assist in meeting
the costs of communicable disease control programs.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/charter.htm

Not once in the entire document does it say that ACIP shall
set government immunization policy. Not once - ever -
anywhere. The role is to advise and inform. To produce
recommendations and lists.

Government policy is set by the HHS - aqnd the CDC reports
to the Secretary of the HHS, in case you were wonndering.
Ultimately, they all report to Bush.

> For one of the vaccines (I've forgotten which one), the
> ACIP committee meeting minutes reported that there were
> members who wanted to recommend the vaccine just because
> it would cause the feds to pay for it!

You forgot?

> You have a lot of patience with these morons. CBI won't
> understand no matter how many times you explain it. I
> don't know what Jonathan's problem is.

Roger - your lies are the problem.

You whine that government immunization policy is written by
industry stooges and try to pass it off as fact.

What a load of ****.

js
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And even in your own example, the ACIP wrote the policy.
> No, ACIP wrote the recommendation - it doesn't become
> governemnt policy until the CDC says it is and at that
> time it is the CDCs government policy. ...

I am going to have to agree with JG that you are a head
case. You post about 10 messages denying that the ACIP is a
policy committee, but now you acknowledge that the ACIP is a
CDC committee that writes documents that the CDC endorses
and become govt policy. JUST WHAT ARE YOU QUIBBLING ABOUT?

Last time I thought you were agreeing with me, you backed
off and claimed that you had a punctuation typo. Is there
another punctuation typo here?!

You are like someone who claims that Congress does not pass
laws, because the laws do not become effective until the
president signs them.

> Any more discussion?

No, you are a hopeless moron.
 
Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
> For someone too fed up to read my posts, you certainly are
doing a lot
> of arguing.

Bingo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back