Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever



[email protected] (Beth) wrote:

>Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
>>
>> >First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
>> >financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
>>
>> Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
>> Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
>> way? Would 100,000?
>
>Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
>to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
>EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!! That's not good.

Beth:
Having every single member file one is not proof of any
chicanery, it's just the bureaucracy doing their job. The rules
of being on ANY governmental advisory committee require that
EVERYONE nominated has to file a "conflict of interest form",
even if they just write "none" in all the blanks.

As for keeping them unpublished: they contain a lot of
information that you would be really annoyed if I published about
you ... SSN, net worth, mortgages, real estate holdings, name and
account number of banks, stock broker accounts, etc.

>> >It's possible that such
>> >experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
>>
>> Given that most people in an industry tend to invest in that
>> industry, that many corporations give stocks as bonuses, that
>> they hire experts in the industry as advisors, and that they fund
>> major university research in their field (I've never seen Intel
>> funding vaccine research, nor Merck funding semiconductor
>> research) ... who is left?
>
>People who aren't researchers. People with expertise in the field of
>public health who study the research that others have done but don't
>have the same biases as those who fund and perform the research.

Those are on the committee ... there are pediatricians, etc.

>Different people can examine the same results and form different
>conclusions, particularly if they have different backgrounds and
>values. Such diversity allows a committee to be more representative
>of the public at large.

On a technical advisory committee, the "public at large" is
useless. They are deciding thnigs based on the technical merits,
not the emotional ones.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
 
[email protected] (Beth) wrote:


>Because when every single member of the committee has a such a
>conflict, their output is suspect.

Every single member is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO FILL OUT THE FORM. If
you don't fill out the form, you don't get to be on the
committee! Period.

It does not mean they all have financial ties to the vaccine
manufacturers via employment, stocks, or research funding ... it
just means that the rules for the committee say you have to fill
out the form before you get on the committee.



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
 
[email protected] (Beth) wrote:


>> Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
>> to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
>> EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!!

>Just as an aside - is this really true?

Yes. ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE are required to fill out the
form accurately and truthfully, and file it, before they can
serve on it (or any other federal advisory committee) ...
however, filling out the form doesn't mean there is a conflict of
interest.

I have filled out forms stating facts about my criminal
background, as has almost anyone who has applied for a job or run
a daycare center) ... does that mean I'm a criminal? No, it just
means I filled in the fricking form!



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
 
"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In <[email protected]>, Beth wrote:
>
> > "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In <[email protected]>, Beth wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> >> >> >financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
> >> >> Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
> >> >> way? Would 100,000?
> >> >
> >> > Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
> >> > to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
> >> > EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!! That's not good.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> > Because when every single member of the committee has a such a
> > conflict, their output is suspect. As a member of the general public,
> > I don't feel I can trust a committee composed solely of such people.
> > Bias is inherent, not just to their decisions, but to their arguments
> > and their discussions. Different points of view are less likely to be
> > heard, and when heard, they are less likely to be judged impartially.
>
> Filing the forms doesn't mean that they *have* a conflict,
> it means that they have interest which *might* cause a
> conflict. Such as, for instance, owning land which might
> be affected by public-policy changes.
>
> Since most leaders in their fields are fairly capable people,
> and capable people have a tendency to manage their affairs
> well, and leaders tend to be fairly senior, you end up with
> them having investments, real estate, etc. Thus potential
> conflicts of interest.

That argument doesn't fly with me. I know many capable, intelligent
well-educated people who are not particularly financially astute and
don't have investments. You're essentially claiming that if someone
isn't finacially well-off, you don't want that person in a public
policy decision making position. I disagree.

> Demanding that people in public positions have no need to
> file conflict-of-interest paperwork leaves you with hermits
> who have taken vows of poverty and have lived alone long
> enough to have no friends or family. Not exactly the
> people you want.

As I've said before, I don't expect such conflicts never to arise.
I'm concerned that it's everyone on the committee. And, frankly, I
wouldn't object to having a few people who've taken vows of poverty
helping decide public policy.

> >> Presumably they have, for instance, 401(K) retirement
> >> plans. That ownership means that it's possible for some of the
> >> business before the committee to affect their holdings. For
> >> items which *do* affect their direct interests, they recuse
> >> themselves. For those which don't directly affect them (for
> >> instance, if an item is up which could benefit a company which
> >> competes with one in which they have an interest) there's no
> >> need to recuse.
> >
> > I don't expect that such conflict of interests would never occur. But
> > I find it difficult to believe that they cannot find ANYONE without
> > such conflicts to serve on the committee. Such a set-up, particularly
> > combined with secrecy regarding both the content of the meetings and
> > the content of the conflict of interest statements, is a recipe for
> > public policy decisions made in the best interests of the few rather
> > than the many.
>
> Why is it so hard to imagine? I'm an engineer, not a biosciences
> type, and until recently I owned some shares of McKesson. My
> cow-orkers, who are equally uninvolved in medicine, mostly have
> some pharmaceutical stocks in their portfolios for the same
> reason: they tend to be countercyclical and make for balance.

If that's the only problem, it's an easy matter to sell off such
shares and invest elsewhere before serving on the committee. A small
price to pay for increased credibility and integrity of the committee
recommendations. And prior to this conversation, I was under the
rather hazy impression that such dis-investments were required in
order to serve on committees that set public policy. Ah well, I was
probably mistaken.

> >> The purpose of those forms is to lay down the facts ahead of
> >> time. About the only way to avoid having anything to file
> >> is to keep all of your retirement savings under a mattress.
> >
> > Hardly. In fact, there is a large portion of citizens in this country
> > that don't have any retirement savings at all, much less a 401k to
> > worry about. Believe it or not, they aren't all high school dropouts
> > living in trailer parks. Some of them are intelligent health care
> > professionals who simply don't focus much of their attention on such
> > mundane matters. I repeat, I find it difficult to believe that they
> > cannot find ANYONE without such conflicts to serve on the committee.
>
> Oh, they probably could -- find someone who's recently
> divorced with kids in college and an ailing parent, for
> instance, whose ex got the investments that didn't go
> towards one generation or the other.
>
> However, if they were more concerned with someone's
> investment portfolio than their scientific expertise

I don't think it's investment portfolio problems that causing the
conflict of interest statements to be filed.

> I'd be worrying a lot more than I do now when those
> who actually have conflicts recuse themselves.

According to the article, in some cases so many members of the
committee have had to recuse themselves on some votes that a quorum
could not be reached. That's a serious problem.

> > Part of the problem is the secrecy. The fact that they won't release
> > the content of those conflict of interest statements. How can someone
> > from outside judge the potential bias of the committee members
> > individually and as a whole? Solely by the percent of those that have
> > filed such statements. Under the circumstances, I would be suspicious
> > of their decisions if more than 50% were faced with such a conflict of
> > interest when serving on the committee. I find it alarming that 100%
> > of them do.
>
> There's this little thing called privacy. Serving on committees
> is a royal pain at best, and having your private details spread
> out for the world to snoop (and, as we've seen, make personal
> attacks) would just make it all the harder to get capable
> members to serve.

Sorry, I like privacy, but I like openess and honesty in government
officials better. When you serve on such committees you have to
expect some exposure. And we're not talking about affairs with
interns here. We're talking about relationships with companies that
may well influence decisions on the matters the committee debates and
decides. Its reasonable for such details to be available to the
public.

> If you have a real problem, file for a court to look into the
> matter with proper privacy safeguards.

An interesting idea. Do you suppose anyone has done so?

Beth
 
In <[email protected]>, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
>
>
>>Because when every single member of the committee has a such a
>>conflict, their output is suspect.
>
> Every single member is LEGALLY REQUIRED TO FILL OUT THE FORM. If
> you don't fill out the form, you don't get to be on the
> committee! Period.
>
> It does not mean they all have financial ties to the vaccine
> manufacturers via employment, stocks, or research funding ... it
> just means that the rules for the committee say you have to fill
> out the form before you get on the committee.

And then, of course, you get some antivac who comes along
and makes a big stink about the fact that the committee
members all filled out the forms. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

The way that the antivac "telephone tree" works, the
story mutates in the telling, too, and thanks to
Darwinian processes the only surviving mutations are
the most outrageous.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
In <[email protected]>, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> I have filled out forms stating facts about my criminal
> background, as has almost anyone who has applied for a job or run
> a daycare center) ... does that mean I'm a criminal? No, it just
> means I filled in the fricking form!

Yeah, but after all those stories you told me from the 60s
the best you can claim is that you didn't get caught :)

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
>
>
> >> Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
> >> to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
> >> EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!!
>
> >Just as an aside - is this really true?
>
> Yes. ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE are required to fill out the
> form accurately and truthfully, and file it, before they can
> serve on it (or any other federal advisory committee) ...
> however, filling out the form doesn't mean there is a conflict of
> interest.

You are right in that filing such a form does not mean that an actual
conflict exists. The forms are supposed to be filled out only if a
potential conflict of interest exists. You don't have to fill one out
if there is no potential conflict. That EVERYONE on the committee
would need to file such a form is cause for concern regarding bias in
the decisions and recommendations they make.

> I have filled out forms stating facts about my criminal
> background, as has almost anyone who has applied for a job or run
> a daycare center) ... does that mean I'm a criminal? No, it just
> means I filled in the fricking form!

I've filled out conflict of interest forms myself. I am aware of what
filling them out means. Thank you.

Beth
 
Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
>
> >Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
> >>
> >> >First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> >> >financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
> >>
> >> Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
> >> Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
> >> way? Would 100,000?
> >
> >Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
> >to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
> >EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!! That's not good.
>
> Beth:
> Having every single member file one is not proof of any
> chicanery, it's just the bureaucracy doing their job. The rules
> of being on ANY governmental advisory committee require that
> EVERYONE nominated has to file a "conflict of interest form",
> even if they just write "none" in all the blanks.

My experience has been that such is not the case. If what you say is
true, could you provide a cite or link to indicate such? When I had
to file such paperwork, I was the only one in a group of roughly 20
that had to file such paperwork.

> As for keeping them unpublished: they contain a lot of
> information that you would be really annoyed if I published about
> you ... SSN, net worth, mortgages, real estate holdings, name and
> account number of banks, stock broker accounts, etc.

Standard procedure is that such forms are available to the public.
Why aren't they being made available here?

> >> >It's possible that such
> >> >experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
> >>
> >> Given that most people in an industry tend to invest in that
> >> industry, that many corporations give stocks as bonuses, that
> >> they hire experts in the industry as advisors, and that they fund
> >> major university research in their field (I've never seen Intel
> >> funding vaccine research, nor Merck funding semiconductor
> >> research) ... who is left?
> >
> >People who aren't researchers. People with expertise in the field of
> >public health who study the research that others have done but don't
> >have the same biases as those who fund and perform the research.
>
> Those are on the committee ... there are pediatricians, etc.

> >Different people can examine the same results and form different
> >conclusions, particularly if they have different backgrounds and
> >values. Such diversity allows a committee to be more representative
> >of the public at large.
>
> On a technical advisory committee, the "public at large" is
> useless. They are deciding thnigs based on the technical merits,
> not the emotional ones.

I didn't say that technically naive people should be included on the
committee. I said that diverse backgrounds would allow the committee
to be more representative of the public at large.

Beth
 
"Beth" <[email protected]> wrote
> elsewhere in order to serve on the committee. If 401K plans are the
> reason committee members are filing conflict of interest forms, then
> that's a problem that can be easily dealt with. Is it? That's not
> the impression I'm getting.

No, the problem is not 401k plans. Some of the committee
members are getting 6-figure cash payments directly from
the vaccine makers.
 
--

"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Beth" <[email protected]> wrote
> > elsewhere in order to serve on the committee. If 401K plans are the
> > reason committee members are filing conflict of interest forms, then
> > that's a problem that can be easily dealt with. Is it? That's not
> > the impression I'm getting.
>
> No, the problem is not 401k plans. Some of the committee
> members are getting 6-figure cash payments directly from
> the vaccine makers.
>
>

Can you cite your source of this information?

--Rich
 
In article <[email protected]>,
CBI <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Do you or David Wright ever give evidence to support what
>> you say? The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,
>> and they support voluntary vaccination. See the above web
>> site for details.
>
>Can you cite any examples of AAPS articles, from t he journal or website,
>that is predominantly supportive of childhood vaccination?

I bet he can't. I sure can't.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jeff Utz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
>> > it's up to you to prove them.
>>
>> Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post. If
>> Merck put all its lobbying positions on its web site, then I
>> would just refer you to its web site. It doesn't. If you want
>> to doubt what I say, go ahead. If you have contrary evidence,
>> then post it.
>
>I interpret the above paragraph as: "I cannot prove or support what I said,
>but somehow it is your fault."

More or less. Roger is the king of the unsupported assertion. He
gets real shirty if you ask him to back up his unsupported
assertions. I always wonder: what's life like at Roger's house?
Is Roger fond of making oracular pronouncements, which the kids (and
perhaps the wife) must all accept as gospel, no matter how silly,
improbable, or unsupported they are? Does this explain why he tries
to use the same tactics here?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Beth) wrote:
>
>
> >> Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
> >> to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
> >> EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!!
>
> >Just as an aside - is this really true?
>
> Yes. ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE are required to fill out the
> form accurately and truthfully, and file it, before they can
> serve on it (or any other federal advisory committee) ...
> however, filling out the form doesn't mean there is a conflict of
> interest.
>

You know, I went back and reread the article. You're right. It isn't
that every member has filled out a conflict of interest form, but that
every member required a waiver of the normal rules in order to be able
to serve on the committee. "all ACIP members serve under waivers". In
other words, it isn't that they've filled out a form, but that a
conflict of interest does indeed exist for every member of the
committee.

Beth
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jeff Utz <[email protected]> wrote:

> >"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote

> >> > It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
> >> > it's up to you to prove them.

A question, David: If, as you allege, Roger often doesn't prove his
assertions (in the matter at hand, with justifiable reason: Vaccine
manufacturers are demonstrably loath to divulge, publicly, their
lobbying tactics/targets), what do you have to say about Utz, who,
having observed--indeed, participated in!--the superfluous flak being
heaped on Roger, immediately posts an assertion (regarding AAPS
membership) that HE hasn't/can't prove, i.e., which is Utz's greater
"sin," "weaseling" or egregious stupidity? (I opt for the latter.)
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Twice. The articles are online, and I have links to them from my
> >web page. There is no secret. You want me to post links more
> >often? Ok, good suggestion.
> But I don't believe you've mentioned your having been published by
> AAPS before, at least not on this n.g. Which certainly gives you a
> vested interest in pushing AAPS as a fine, reputable organization,
> does it not?

Ok, I'll try to mention it more often. Yes, AAPS is a fine, reputable
organization. As evidence, it published my article! <g>
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<F1aZa.4053$%[email protected]>...
> "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> > >financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.
> > Define "financial ties", please. Did my dad's 100 shares of
> > Pfizer (a promotional gimmick) make him beholden to htem in any
> > way? Would 100,000?
>
> The US gubmnt has conflict of interest regulations that make such
> definitions. I don't have them handy. They have to be waived for
> the vaccine committees, because the members do not comply.
>
> And the violations are not just for having 100 shares of stock. Some
> of the members have received 6-figure payments as unrestricted
> "educational" grants for the purpose of promoting vaccines.
> I think that the system is corrupt.

If this is true, I would agree.

Beth
 
"Beth" <[email protected]> wrote
> You know, I went back and reread the article. You're right. It isn't
> that every member has filled out a conflict of interest form, but that
> every member required a waiver of the normal rules in order to be able
> to serve on the committee. "all ACIP members serve under waivers". In
> other words, it isn't that they've filled out a form, but that a
> conflict of interest does indeed exist for every member of the
> committee.

Even more shocking is the vaccine apologists' argument that
there just isn't anyone who would endorse the vaccine mandates,
except for those on the take from the vaccine makers!
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Beth" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Ties that require the filing of a conflict of interest form in order
> > > to serve on the committee. Some such filings are to be expected, but
> > > EVERY SINGLE MEMBER?!!!
> > Just as an aside - is this really true?
>
> Congressman Burton blew the whistle on this, and had some
> hearings on the subject. Some of his findings are here:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/staff.txt
>
> Unfortunately, he didn't generate enough interest to force
> substantial changes in the CDC and FDA policies. They are still
> as corrupt as ever.


This was interesting. Thanks for the link.

Beth
 
In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:

> More or less. Roger is the king of the unsupported assertion. He
> gets real shirty if you ask him to back up his unsupported
> assertions. I always wonder: what's life like at Roger's house?
> Is Roger fond of making oracular pronouncements, which the kids (and
> perhaps the wife) must all accept as gospel, no matter how silly,
> improbable, or unsupported they are? Does this explain why he tries
> to use the same tactics here?

Have a look at his mother, and your question is answered.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
"Beth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Do you own any mutual funds? If you do the chances are that you would
have
> > to submit a conflict of interest statement as you probably have
financial
> > interests in several pharmaceutical companies.
>
> I don't think owning mutual funds would necessarily require submitting
> a conflict of interest statement.

How would owning a piece of Merk not be a conflict?

> I have never received anything from
> my broker indicating what individual companies the mutual funds I own
> choose to invest in. I just receive a statement giving the value of
> the shares of each fund, the total number of shares and the total
> value.

Yes, but you probably do own interested in pharmaceutical companies. If you
sat on the committees others would look into your dealings, see that, and
accuse you of being biased. More importantly, if you were in a possition
where you were expected to declare such relationships you would have to look
it up and put it down. To not do so would be fraud.


> I guess if one owned shares of an industry specific fund, it
> would be appropriate to file a conflict of interest statement. But I
> think it would be more appropriate to sell the shares and invest them
> elsewhere in order to serve on the committee. If 401K plans are the
> reason committee members are filing conflict of interest forms, then
> that's a problem that can be easily dealt with. Is it? That's not
> the impression I'm getting.

No one here has actually said exactly what the problem is. It could be
anything ranging from that they had to fill out the forms regardless of if
they have any relationships to them being paid lobbyists. The point here is
that you are raising all these alarms without knowing. If you think there is
a problem go find out. If you claim there is a problem then the burden of
proof is on you to show what it is.

Wouldn't it be better to first decide what it is you are discussing and then
argue about it?

--
CBI, MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back