Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever



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

>
> [Going off, slightly, on a tangent...] The ACIP's own decisions,
> especially those to recommend routine use of the hepatitis B and
> varicella vaccines, can be blamed for the (IMO) increased scrutiny of
> its membership. Hepatitis B, unlike, say, measles or mumps, is NOT a
> highly communicable disease; it's overwhelmingly transmitted via KNOWN,
> avoidable behaviors, and chickenpox is (as occasionally discussed on
> mkh) an overwhelmingly benign disease for which the costs (overall) of
> vaccinating exceed the benefits when "lost productivity"--NOT a direct
> cost of treating infected kids--is excluded.


JG,

First of all, I just wanted to say I enjoy your posts. I don't
usually respond because you make good sense. Even if I disagree, I
can understand your point of view.

This last paragraph is, I think, indicative of the kind of decisions
that one could expect to see if the committee was biased towards
recommending vaccinations. I don't think the members are "slaves" or
"stooges" of the vaccine manufactures; I'm reasonably certain they are
intelligent people who are doing their best to minimize the influence
they must certainly feel (at least I hope so). Still, biased
decisions would be expected from such a committee, apparently have
been made, and no doubt will continue to be made, until such time as
the committee has a majority of members without such
conflict-of-interest ties.

I think it's time to compose a letter to my congressman.

Beth
 
"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:
>
> > Whoa. You're saying that children are going out and shooting up,
> > getting tattoos, etc? I was referring to relatively young children,
> > not 18-year-olds. Roger similarly commented about homosexual
> > activity; I'm talking about kids too young for that.
>
> Rog is referring to household members.
> The theory being that we can identify these risky
> household members and only vaccinate the kids who
> live with them. Naturally, they'll be forthcoming
> when asked about these behaviors when asked for
> purposes of vaccination, although they are too shy
> to mention it after someone close to them contracts
> hepatitis.

I think the theory is that if none of the household members have Hep B
or are participating in risky activities, there's really no reason to
immunize their young children against it. The risk/benefit of
immunization equation changes because the risk is different.

This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
when it isn't the best choice for them.
 
In <[email protected]>, abacus wrote:

> Still, biased
> decisions would be expected from such a committee, apparently have
> been made, and no doubt will continue to be made, until such time as
> the committee has a majority of members without such
> conflict-of-interest ties.

And how are you going to arrange that?

Keep in mind that the same people complaining about the ACIP
also complain that the CDC, right up to the Director, are in
the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. In fact, it
appears that by the very fact of serving on any governmental
body related to vaccination, one acquires a conflict of
interest.

--
| 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
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

> > [Going off, slightly, on a tangent...] The ACIP's own decisions,
> > especially those to recommend routine use of the hepatitis B and
> > varicella vaccines, can be blamed for the (IMO) increased scrutiny
of
> > its membership. Hepatitis B, unlike, say, measles or mumps, is NOT
a
> > highly communicable disease; it's overwhelmingly transmitted via
KNOWN,
> > avoidable behaviors, and chickenpox is (as occasionally discussed on
> > mkh) an overwhelmingly benign disease for which the costs (overall)
of
> > vaccinating exceed the benefits when "lost productivity"--NOT a
direct
> > cost of treating infected kids--is excluded.

> JG,

> First of all, I just wanted to say I enjoy your posts. I don't
> usually respond because you make good sense. Even if I disagree, I
> can understand your point of view.

Thank you; you've made my day! :eek:) I've enjoyed your posts, too! (And
kudos for hanging in there in light of the downright adversarial
responses you've gotten to some of your posts.) I've occasionally
wondered if most of the mkh regulars, especially those engaged in
health-care delivery, even *attempt* to comprehend a libertarian
outlook. Those who can, ipso facto, are obviously brighter, and more
open-minded, than the others. <g> (I'm *still* trying to grasp where
those who favor paternalistic government are coming from...)

> This last paragraph is, I think, indicative of the kind of decisions
> that one could expect to see if the committee was biased towards
> recommending vaccinations. I don't think the members are "slaves" or
> "stooges" of the vaccine manufactures; I'm reasonably certain they are
> intelligent people who are doing their best to minimize the influence
> they must certainly feel (at least I hope so). Still, biased
> decisions would be expected from such a committee, apparently have
> been made, and no doubt will continue to be made, until such time as
> the committee has a majority of members without such
> conflict-of-interest ties.

I agree. How do we get people to really (stop and) THINK about what's
going on and its myriad implications for their lives and our country's
future? <g>

> I think it's time to compose a letter to my congressman.

YOU GO, GIRL!!! ;o) I received only a "Thank you for your interest in
your <snicker> government; we'll look into it (yadda, yadda, yadda...)"
response when I e-mailed mine, asking him to keep a close eye on the
Burton hearings. <sigh> Here's hoping you have more luck!

JG

If you lack the iron and the fizz to take control of your own life, then
the gods will repay your weakness by having a grin or two at your
expense. Should you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at
what inappropriate port you find yourself docked.
--Tom Robbins
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
> This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
> that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
> behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
> insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
> when it isn't the best choice for them.

I think that the best solution is to explain the alternatives,
and let the patient (or parent) make his own decision.
That is usually how medicine works best.
 
"Beth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[...]

> Thanks to everyone for your posts. It's been interesting, but my
> classes start next week, and I'm going to have to get back to work
> preparing them. Hmmm, perhaps I'll assign my stat students a project
> to research vaccine recommendations.

Thanks for all *your* posts. It's refreshing to have an open-minded,
questioning individual participate in vaccine/vaccination discussions.
I hope those here who invariably support gubmnt vaccination policies
have learned something. If your students do research vaccine
recommendations, PLEASE post their findings!
 
>"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
>> This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
>> that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
>> behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
>> insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
>> when it isn't the best choice for them.
>


>I think that the best solution is to explain the alternatives,
>and let the patient (or parent) make his own decision.

Do you think that the lay person is going to have as good an understanding of
it as an expert? Do you advocate doing the same in instances of civil
engineering? Would you have the general public decide just how much load
bearing is involved in a particular suspension bridge?

>That is usually how medicine works best.

No, it works best when those who know best make the decisions, allowing the
individual the right to choose not to participate...unless an epidemic is
possible.
 
"Ilsa9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
> >> that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
> >> behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
> >> insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
> >> when it isn't the best choice for them.
> >
>
>
> >I think that the best solution is to explain the alternatives,
> >and let the patient (or parent) make his own decision.
>
> Do you think that the lay person is going to have as good an understanding
of
> it as an expert? Do you advocate doing the same in instances of civil
> engineering? Would you have the general public decide just how much load
> bearing is involved in a particular suspension bridge?
>
> >That is usually how medicine works best.
>
> No, it works best when those who know best make the decisions
And for some reason, you think that someone who thinks like you do would be
best..............
 
>Subject: Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever
>From: [email protected] (abacus)
>Date: 8/11/2003 5:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> > Whoa. You're saying that children are going out and shooting up,
>> > getting tattoos, etc? I was referring to relatively young children,
>> > not 18-year-olds. Roger similarly commented about homosexual
>> > activity; I'm talking about kids too young for that.
>>
>> Rog is referring to household members.
>> The theory being that we can identify these risky
>> household members and only vaccinate the kids who
>> live with them. Naturally, they'll be forthcoming
>> when asked about these behaviors when asked for
>> purposes of vaccination, although they are too shy
>> to mention it after someone close to them contracts
>> hepatitis.
>
>I think the theory is that if none of the household members have Hep B
>or are participating in risky activities, there's really no reason to
>immunize their young children against it. The risk/benefit of
>immunization equation changes because the risk is different.
>
>This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
>that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
>behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
>insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
>when it isn't the best choice for them

Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that all
new borns have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.

Jan


The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Albert Einstein
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

JG

I wouldn't mind corresponding with you privately. If you're
interested, please email me your address.

> I've occasionally
> wondered if most of the mkh regulars, especially those engaged in
> health-care delivery, even *attempt* to comprehend a libertarian
> outlook. Those who can, ipso facto, are obviously brighter, and more
> open-minded, than the others. <g> (I'm *still* trying to grasp where
> those who favor paternalistic government are coming from...)

They desire to force others to behave as they think best. (A common
theme throughout history.) They have an absolute conviction that they
actually DO know what is best for others. In some cases, they're even
right.

In fairness, I think that health professionals get an awful lot of
exposure to the problems that result from people making stupid
choices, as well as people taking risks and losing the gamble. I can
understand their desire to change the environment/culture so that some
of what they have to help repair doesn't happen in the first place. I
just wish they would be a little more receptive to real concerns on
issues like vaccinations instead of lumping all objectors together, as
if rational and irrational objections all have equal merit - i.e.
none.

I also think that another problem is that they don't place the same
value on the loss of independence and freedom in such matters that
folks like you and I do. Why should folks get to decide minor
personal matters such as whether or not to wear a seat belt for
themselves or vaccinate their kids when the right decision is clear?

> > This last paragraph is, I think, indicative of the kind of decisions
> > that one could expect to see if the committee was biased towards
> > recommending vaccinations. I don't think the members are "slaves" or
> > "stooges" of the vaccine manufactures; I'm reasonably certain they are
> > intelligent people who are doing their best to minimize the influence
> > they must certainly feel (at least I hope so). Still, biased
> > decisions would be expected from such a committee, apparently have
> > been made, and no doubt will continue to be made, until such time as
> > the committee has a majority of members without such
> > conflict-of-interest ties.
>
> I agree. How do we get people to really (stop and) THINK about what's
> going on and its myriad implications for their lives and our country's
> future? <g>

LOL. If you figure this one out, count me in. <g>

> If you lack the iron and the fizz to take control of your own life, then
> the gods will repay your weakness by having a grin or two at your
> expense. Should you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at
> what inappropriate port you find yourself docked.
> --Tom Robbins

Love the quote. Which Tom Robbins' novel is that from? "Even
Cowgirls Get the Blues" is my favorite.

Beth
 
In <[email protected]>, Jan LIED:

> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that all
> new borns have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.

Ah, another lie that Jan "I always prove my claims" Drew
won't support with evidence. Of course, she doesn't have
any ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with newborn vaccination, but that
requirement only applies to others.

--
| 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
 
--

"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In <[email protected]>, Jan LIED:
>
> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
that all
> > new borns have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
> Ah, another lie that Jan "I always prove my claims" Drew
> won't support with evidence. Of course, she doesn't have
> any ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with newborn vaccination, but that
> requirement only applies to others.
>
> --
> | 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


Jan is a proven liar, and is not qualified to begin a statement with, "Truth
is..."

-- Rich
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> > But is it true about hep B? I was under the impression that a
>> >> > significant fraction (20% or more) of hep B cases in children
>> >> > were of unknown origin.
>> >I think he is referring to a study that once labelled some of the
>> >infections as "unknown origin" because the cause was not known
>> >to the researcher doing the study. Often the cause is known, but ...
>> And you know this how?
>
>Are you asking me to document your unsupported assertions?
>You are the one who said that 20% were of unknown origin.
>Why don't you read your source, and then see what the study
>meant when it said "unknown origin"?

OK, I found it -- the numbers come from CDC, who say that 30% of those
with Hep B have no known risk factors. Even though most people don't
have Hep B, and never will, that 30% figure is pretty disturbing.

That equates to several percent of the US population having Hep B
infections and we have no idea how they got them.

-- 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)
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Are you asking me to document your unsupported assertions?
> >You are the one who said that 20% were of unknown origin.
> >Why don't you read your source, and then see what the study
> >meant when it said "unknown origin"?
> OK, I found it -- the numbers come from CDC, who say that 30% of those
> with Hep B have no known risk factors.

Read what it means, or post the URL. I think you'll find that
"not known" only means that the risk factor was not known to the
guy doing the study.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
>> This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
>> that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
>> behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
>> insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
>> when it isn't the best choice for them.
>
>I think that the best solution is to explain the alternatives,
>and let the patient (or parent) make his own decision.

And when did the promiscuous drug-using segment of the population
have any common sense?

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
 
In article <9l%[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >Are you asking me to document your unsupported assertions?
>> >You are the one who said that 20% were of unknown origin.
>> >Why don't you read your source, and then see what the study
>> >meant when it said "unknown origin"?
>> OK, I found it -- the numbers come from CDC, who say that 30% of those
>> with Hep B have no known risk factors.
>
>Read what it means, or post the URL. I think you'll find that
>"not known" only means that the risk factor was not known to the
>guy doing the study.

Your keen grasp of tautology does not help us at all here, and does
not explain why vaccinating kids against hep B is a bad idea.

-- 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)
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
> I understand the logic behind the policy of recommending the vaccine
> for every child: "We should vaccinate everyone because we can't identify
> whose at high risk and who's not." I just don't agree with it. Just
> because the policy makers can't make that determination about whether
> it's appropriate for my child doesn't mean I can't.

There are some even worse reasons that are used to justify the
policy. Eg, They say it gets all the kids on the vaccine schedule
right away, so they'll be more likely to get the other vaccines on schedule.
 
"Beth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

> JG

> I wouldn't mind corresponding with you privately. If you're
> interested, please email me your address.

Feel free to write; my e-mail addy ([email protected]) is legit. :eek:)

> > I've occasionally
> > wondered if most of the mkh regulars, especially those engaged in
> > health-care delivery, even *attempt* to comprehend a libertarian
> > outlook. Those who can, ipso facto, are obviously brighter, and
more
> > open-minded, than the others. <g> (I'm *still* trying to grasp
where
> > those who favor paternalistic government are coming from...)

> They desire to force others to behave as they think best. (A common
> theme throughout history.) They have an absolute conviction that they
> actually DO know what is best for others. In some cases, they're even
> right.

Wow, how timely/relevant Dennis Prager's latest column ("What Makes a
Liberal?") is! From the column:
"How, then, can decent and often very smart people hold liberal
positions?

There are many reasons, but the two greatest may be naivete and
narcissism."

(To save Utz/"Goober" from getting his panties all twisted [again!] due
to posting, albeit with proper attribution, copyrighted material, the
entire article is online at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml.)

> In fairness, I think that health professionals get an awful lot of
> exposure to the problems that result from people making stupid
> choices, as well as people taking risks and losing the gamble. I can
> understand their desire to change the environment/culture so that some
> of what they have to help repair doesn't happen in the first place.

I, too, can understand their (*everyone's*, I hope) desire to see a
reduction in the damage/grief/trauma that occasionally results from
stupid choices/behavior, but changing the "environment" almost always
means impinging on the rights of the "competent majority" and invariably
entails paternalistic legislation. (I'm not sure "culture" can be
changed.) Far better, IMO, to attempt to change "incompetent"
individuals themselves, via education--and I don't mean simply by going
over a list of "dos and don'ts" (e.g., "Always use a properly installed
car seat"; "Never store a loaded gun where a child might get it"), which
is information that, if not "common sense," is widely available from
other, often "more expert" sources. (A great deal of my animosity
towards *some* pediatricians, and certainly towards the AAP, stems from
this fact. *Safety* information [and a lot of health information, e.g.,
info regarding diet/nutrition and sleep] abounds; the same "advice" can
be obtained without doing anything more than reading a newspaper or
magazine, listening to news broadcasts, watching TV, or reading the
owner's manual that comes with a product. Despite the fact that such
information is ubiquitous, the AAP apparently believes that hearing it
from a pediatrician will have more of an impact on parents, i.e., that
pediatricians are somehow more "expert," or more credible, than other
sources. Some peds respond to such criticism with "So what if it's
redundant advice and nothing more than a reminder for competent,
conscientious parents? What harm's being done [other than perhaps
wasting half a minute]?" Well, a lot, IMO. Apart from being insulting
to diligent, "aware" parents--at the very least, it indicates that the
physician hasn't bothered, or doesn't think it's important/necessary, to
get to know parents well enough to gauge their "parenting quotient"
[perhaps he/she doesn't have the "Social Quotient" to accurately do
so]--it contributes to the demise of personal responsibility and the
expansion of paternalism.) <jumping off soapbox :eek:)>

I
> just wish they would be a little more receptive to real concerns on
> issues like vaccinations instead of lumping all objectors together, as
> if rational and irrational objections all have equal merit - i.e.
> none.

Ah, but to many there are NO rational objections! <g> Those who don't
subscribe to the belief that "Vaccination is Good" (i.e., safe,
necessary), while perhaps not stupid, merely need "educating"
(programming?). Vaccination truly is a black/white issue with many
physicians I've encountered, some of whom even go so far as to vilify
those who have the audacity to question vaccines and vaccination policy
(and, indirectly, *their* authority/"expertise"?). ...But you certainly
know this. ;o)

> I also think that another problem is that they don't place the same
> value on the loss of independence and freedom in such matters that
> folks like you and I do. Why should folks get to decide minor
> personal matters such as whether or not to wear a seat belt for
> themselves or vaccinate their kids when the right decision is clear?


Exactly. The elitism of those who support paternalism/nannying is
galling. Where DO they get off thinking they're more capable/qualified
to make decisions for another individual, especially in cases where the
only one who'd be harmed by a "wrong"/"stupid" (according to them)
decision is the person him/herself? (Far too many of them believe that
children "belong" to "the village," but that discussion will have to
wait for another time. <g>)

> > If you lack the iron and the fizz to take control of your own life,
then
> > the gods will repay your weakness by having a grin or two at your
> > expense. Should you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised
at
> > what inappropriate port you find yourself docked.
> > --Tom Robbins

> Love the quote. Which Tom Robbins' novel is that from? "Even
> Cowgirls Get the Blues" is my favorite.

_Jitterbug Perfume_ .

JG

"Our individuality is all, ALL, that we have. There are those who barter
it for security, those who repress it for what they believe is the
betterment of the whole society, but blessed in the twinkle of the
morning star is the one who nurtures it and rides it, in grace and love
and wit, from peculiar station to peculiar station along life's
bittersweet route."
--Tom Robbins (also _Jitterbug Perfume)_
 
"Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "JG" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Nice list of definitions, but I'd have expected you to be a bit more
> >ethical, Tsu! ;o) You truncated, I suspect intentionally, the most
> >relevant portion--the opening words--of the definition of "special
> >Government employee":

> Hey, it's a cut and paste FROM THE FORMS, not the law itself. I
> did not look up the law, because I was interested in the forms
> and what they asked for.

Whatever. <g> So the some gubmnt bureaucrats screw with gubmnt
employees. Hardly surprising...

> >"For the purpose of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of this
title
> >the term 'special Government employee' shall mean an officer or
employee
> >of the executive or legislative branch of the United States
Government,
> >of any independent agency of the United States or of the District of
> >Columbia, [who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to
> >perform, with or without compensation...] (18 U.S.C. 202)

> >So, Tsu, a "special Government employee" is NOT just "A (i.e., any
ol')
> >person who is retained...," as you would have us believe (no doubt
you
> >had Utz snowed, though!), but rather an individual who is ALREADY
> >employed by the federal gubmnt (or D.C.).

> And to get ON a committee, even on the short list, you have to
> fill out the forms and submit them.

A "civilian" (one not employed by the federal government) should NOT be
filling out forms designed for "special Government employees." Shame on
whoever's asking them to.

> The classification of "special government employee" is a legal
> fiction which gives you immunity against lawsuits for advising.

Perhaps, but according to the US Code, "special Government employees"
are already (federal) gubmnt employees.
 
"Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> This is a difficult situation because it's certainly understandable
> >> that many people would not be forthcoming about engaging in risky
> >> behaviors, but at the same time, it's unfair to those who do not to
> >> insist that they subject their children to the risk of the vaccine
> >> when it isn't the best choice for them.

> >I think that the best solution is to explain the alternatives,
> >and let the patient (or parent) make his own decision.

> And when did the promiscuous drug-using segment of the population
> have any common sense?

So identify/ferret out the "promiscuous drug-using segment of the
population" and vaccinate THEM, for heaven's sake! (Yes, of course it's
too late for many; tattoo a scarlet "HBV+" on THEIR foreheads.) No
proof of vaccination or a tattoo? Sorry, bucko, no free needles,
condoms, methadone, soup,...for you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back