Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

[Roger Schlafly]

"Mark Probert" > wrote
> More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever - Report

And yet the drug lobby is still trying to eliminate vaccine exemptions.

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"Mark Probert" > wrote
>> More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever - Report
>
>And yet the drug lobby is still trying to eliminate vaccine exemptions.

I'd like to see some evidence of this. I doubt any will be
forthcoming, however.

-- 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)

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> Roger Schlafly > wrote:

> >And yet the drug lobby is still trying to eliminate vaccine
exemptions.

> I'd like to see some evidence of this. I doubt any will be
> forthcoming, however.

I'll do some checking regarding the pharmas, but it's undeniable that
medial associations are working to see religious and philosophical
exemptions removed:

H-440.970 Religious Exemptions from Immunizations.




Since religious/philosophic exemptions from immunizations endanger
not only the health of the unvaccinated individual, but also the health
of those in his or her group and the community at large, the AMA (1)
encourages state medical associations to seek removal of such exemptions
in statutes requiring mandatory immunizations; (2) ....

(http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyf
iles/HOD/H-440.970.HTM)

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
. ..

> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
> the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.

Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
<g>

[David Wright]

In article >,
JG > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
>> say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
>> the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.
>
>Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
>pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
>religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?

I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations. If
you're going to go changing the subject, you're going to have to
expect to be misunderstood.

-- 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > wrote
> >> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> >> say, Merck.
> >Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
> >pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
> >religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
> I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.

Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
and post them.

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
> exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
> exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
> and post them.

Sorry, Rog - You made the accusation and so the burden of proof rests with
you.

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
> exemptions?

Yes.

> Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
> exemptions?

I have no reason to believe that they do.

> If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
> and post them.

Ah, the old Schlafly shift-the-burden-of-proof dodge.

--
| 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

[Jeff Utz]

"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "David Wright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> > say, Merck. And please don't respond that the AMA is merely acting in
> > the service of the drug companies unless you have evidence.
>
> Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
> pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
> religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
> <g>
>

Roger's claim was that the "drug lobby" was doing this.

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > wrote
> > >> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
> > >> say, Merck.
> > >Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
> > >pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to
see
> > >religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
> > I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.
>
> Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
> exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
> exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
> and post them.

Another failure of Roger to provide evidence for his claim.

Jeff

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote
>> >> That's the AMA, JG. I was looking for something coming from, let's
>> >> say, Merck.
>> >Yes, David.... What part of "I'll do some checking regarding the
>> >pharmas, but it's undeniable that medial associations are working to see
>> >religious and philosophical exemptions removed" didn't you understand?
>> I was thinking more in terms of Roger's original accusations.
>
>Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
>exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
>exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
>and post them.

Ah, Roger, I see the long layoff from the newsgroup has not dulled
your well-honed weaselling abilities. But I'm not going to let you
get away with it. It's not up to me to disprove your assertions,
it's up to you to prove them. If you had any actual evidence, you'd
have posted it by now. Instead, I get the usual Schlafly drivel:
"are you doubting <blah blah blah>". Doesn't matter. You're making
a claim -- either back it up, or be revealed, once again, as the
windbag you are.

-- 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > 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.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Happy Dog" > wrote
> > Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post.
> those who haven't, I present two examples of your BS debating tactics for
> the enjoyment of anyone who thinks that you do a great disservice to
mankind

Curious examples. One of them appears to be an example of David
Wright being unable to substantiate a claim that he made.

The other is H.Dog trying to badger me into saying that peds are
evil. Then he accuses me of being evasive when I deny that peds
are evil. I repeat: I do not think that peds are evil!

I have answered many questions from H.Dog, but he never
seems to be able to get to the point.

[Happy Dog]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Happy Dog" > wrote
> > > Sorry, but I am not obligated to prove everything I post.
> > those who haven't, I present two examples of your BS debating tactics
for
> > the enjoyment of anyone who thinks that you do a great disservice to
> mankind
>
> Curious examples. One of them appears to be an example of David
> Wright being unable to substantiate a claim that he made.

Only to you.
>
> The other is H.Dog trying to badger me into saying that peds are
> evil. Then he accuses me of being evasive when I deny that peds
> are evil. I repeat: I do not think that peds are evil!

You're such a loser. Unless you deny saying the following, you have no
case...

"For the most part, those promoting vaccines here are pediatricians and
drug company lobbyists. They are acting in their financial interests."

> I have answered many questions from H.Dog, but he never
> seems to be able to get to the point.

Godlike.

le moo

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > 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."

Wrong Roger. You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
failed to provide evidence that it is.

When you make a claim and others question it, it is up to you to provide
evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, your claim is essentially
disproven.

Jeff

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
> failed to provide evidence that it is.

Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
against the vaccine mandates?

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> >You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
> > failed to provide evidence that it is.
>
> Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
> against the vaccine mandates?

I don't know. They could be against them, because they fear a backlash or
lawsuits from people and realize that the vast majority of parents
understand that their kids are protected by vaccines and are better off with
them than without them. I am not in the legal, marketing or lobbying
department (or any other department) of any of the vaccine companies.

Anyway, you made a claim, so it is up to you to back up your claim. Your
unsubstantiated guess does not count.

All the best,

Jeff

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > 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.

Anyone who has taken even a casual interest in your posting
history is well aware that you are a blowhard who likes to
make sweeping statements that he can't back up. When called
on this behavior, as you invariably are, you invariably attempt
to muddy the waters. This never fools anyone, but you keep
trying anyway.

>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.

Oh, I doubt most everything you say. Your consistent lack of
evidence is one of your defining traits.

>If you have contrary evidence, then post it.

The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question. A question
that Roger the Blowhard will do nothing to answer.

-- 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]

In article >,
Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote:
>
>
>>The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
>>doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
>>exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
>>basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.
>
>Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
>Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
>visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
>cough?

And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.

-- 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]

In article >,
Jeff Utz > wrote:
>
>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
>> >You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
>> > failed to provide evidence that it is.
>>
>> Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
>> against the vaccine mandates?
>
>I don't know. They could be against them, because they fear a backlash or
>lawsuits from people and realize that the vast majority of parents
>understand that their kids are protected by vaccines and are better off with
>them than without them. I am not in the legal, marketing or lobbying
>department (or any other department) of any of the vaccine companies.

If making vaccines was so marvelously profitable, nobody would get out
of the business. And yet we do see various pharmaceutical companies
getting out of the vaccine business, even though vaccine usage is at
an all-time high in the US.

-- 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)

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...

> > "Jeff Utz" > wrote

> > >You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
> > > failed to provide evidence that it is.

> > Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
> > against the vaccine mandates?

> I don't know.

Read the article at http://www.all.org/activism/pox02.htm.

Now you do.

[Beth]

Thanks for the link. It was most interesting reading. While I wasn't
surprised by the lobbying efforts of vaccine manufacturers, I was
stunned by the level of secrecy and conflict of interest documented
regarding the CDC vaccine advisory committee.

Beth

"JG" > wrote in message >...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> > et...
>
> > > "Jeff Utz" > wrote
>
> > > >You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
> > > > failed to provide evidence that it is.
>
> > > Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
> > > against the vaccine mandates?
>
> > I don't know.
>
> Read the article at http://www.all.org/activism/pox02.htm.
>
> Now you do.

[Jeff Utz]

Very interesting article. I missed the part about where it said the vaccine
makers were lobbying against vaccine exemptions, which was Roger's original
claim, though. (Lobbying for mandatory vaccines is a different issue.)And
gee, this is the evidence that has been offered.

Although I do agree all conflicts of interest should be made public, I have
yet to see the evidence that these conflicts of interest has changed
anyone's vote.

Jeff

[Rich Shewmaker]

--

"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote:
> (David Wright) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
> >>doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
> >>exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
> >>basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.
> >
> >Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
> >Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
> >visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
> >cough?
>
> And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
> many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
> costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
> the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.
>
> -- 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)
>

Besides, look at the dosing schedule. A vaccine is given at a rate of one
dose every five years at the most. Is this a picture of a profitable
product? Pharmaceutical companies make their big profits on meds like
NSAIDS, and antidepressants, and drugs for GERD and hypertension.

--Rich

[Mark Probert]

JG wrote:

> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>
>
>>>"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>
>
>>>>You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
>>>>failed to provide evidence that it is.
>
>
>>>Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
>>>against the vaccine mandates?
>
>
>>I don't know.
>
>
> Read the article at http://www.all.org/activism/pox02.htm.
>
> Now you do.

AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any information.

The article points out that State health Departments, reputable medical
institutions, and the CDC advocate for vaccination requirements.

And, they should. They know what the diseases do.

Ever see a polio ward?

[Jeff Utz]

(...)

> Ever see a polio ward?

No. Thanks to vaccines.

Jeff

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...
> Very interesting article. I missed the part about where it said the
vaccine
> makers were lobbying against vaccine exemptions, which was Roger's
original
> claim, though. (Lobbying for mandatory vaccines is a different issue.)

<sigh> I posted it in response to your statement, "I don't know (whether
drug companies are for or against the vaccine mandates)." Vaccine
manufacturers clearly DO lobby state legislators when it comes to adding
their vaccines to the lists of vaccines states require for school entry;
it's probable, IMO, that they also do some lobbying if/when there's an
effort to expand the exemptions a state offers (e.g., when a proposal to
add a "philosophical" exemption is raised).

If you want to continue playing your "Prove it!" game, go right ahead.
Be careful, however, lest every statement YOU post is similarly
challenged. (You want to start by proving some of the [quite OT]
allegations you've made regarding the Bush administration?)

And
> gee, this is the evidence that has been offered.

> Although I do agree all conflicts of interest should be made public, I
have
> yet to see the evidence that these conflicts of interest has changed
> anyone's vote.
>
> Jeff
>
>

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
>>You said that the drug lobby is doing something. You have
>> failed to provide evidence that it is.
>
> Take a wild guess. Do you think that the drug companies are for or
> against the vaccine mandates?

Ah, the usual Schlafly "I conjecture, therefore it is true"
proof schema.

--
| 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

[CBI]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
>
> And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
> many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
> costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
> the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.

Ever wonder why there are 10 ACEI inhibitors (a blood pressure med) on the
market but shortages of flu vaccine?

--
CBI, MD

[David Wright]

In article >,
JG > wrote:
>"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...
>> Very interesting article. I missed the part about where it said the
>vaccine
>> makers were lobbying against vaccine exemptions, which was Roger's
>original
>> claim, though. (Lobbying for mandatory vaccines is a different issue.)
>
><sigh> I posted it in response to your statement, "I don't know (whether
>drug companies are for or against the vaccine mandates)." Vaccine
>manufacturers clearly DO lobby state legislators when it comes to adding
>their vaccines to the lists of vaccines states require for school entry;
>it's probable, IMO, that they also do some lobbying if/when there's an
>effort to expand the exemptions a state offers (e.g., when a proposal to
>add a "philosophical" exemption is raised).

It may indeed be that they do this. However, Roger simply assured us
that it was true, rather than being truthful and telling us that it
was merely his opinion.

I'm neither surprised nor particularly disturbed that vaccine makers
lobby for the adoption of their vaccines, no more so than I am over
the makers of any other product lobbying for themselves.

-- 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)

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
.com...

> Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
> and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.

I don't think most members are anti-vaccination per se, they're simply
opposed to forced (mandatory) vaccination (actually *any* medical
procedure/treatment that's coerced). See, for example, "AAPS Opposes
Vaccine Mandates"; go to http://www.aapsonline.org/ and scroll down the
list on the left-hand side of the page.

[Mark Probert]

Rich Shewmaker wrote:
> --
>
> "David Wright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote:
>>
(David Wright) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
>>>>doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
>>>>exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
>>>>basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.
>>>
>>>Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
>>>Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
>>>visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
>>>cough?
>>
>>And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
>>many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
>>costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
>>the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.
>>
>> -- 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)
>>
>
>
> Besides, look at the dosing schedule. A vaccine is given at a rate of one
> dose every five years at the most. Is this a picture of a profitable
> product? Pharmaceutical companies make their big profits on meds like
> NSAIDS, and antidepressants, and drugs for GERD and hypertension.


Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
latter, but not for vaccines?

Seems to make perfect sense.

I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.

[Rich Shewmaker]

--

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
.net...
> Rich Shewmaker wrote:
> > --
> >
> > "David Wright" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article >,
> >>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote:
> >>
> (David Wright) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
> >>>>doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
> >>>>exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
> >>>>basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.
> >>>
> >>>Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
> >>>Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
> >>>visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
> >>>cough?
> >>
> >>And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
> >>many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
> >>costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
> >>the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.
> >>
> >> -- 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)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Besides, look at the dosing schedule. A vaccine is given at a rate of
one
> > dose every five years at the most. Is this a picture of a profitable
> > product? Pharmaceutical companies make their big profits on meds like
> > NSAIDS, and antidepressants, and drugs for GERD and hypertension.
>
>
> Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
> latter, but not for vaccines?
>
> Seems to make perfect sense.
>
> I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
> repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.
>
>
>

Note: Just ONE pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, spent more on ADVERTISING
Vioxx than the total gross sales of vaccines by ALL of the pharmaceutical
industry worldwide. Where's the vested interest?

--Rich

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > wrote
> > Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
> > and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
>
> No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
>
> AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
>

I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

Jeff

[Beth]

Mark Probert > wrote in message >...
> JG wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Read the article at http://www.all.org/activism/pox02.htm.
> >
> > Now you do.
>
> AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any information.

What evidence do you have for this? The information given is
verifiable. Now that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but I tend
to put more crediance in statements that can be shown to be true or
false. Can you cite a source that discredits what was said in the
article?

Beth

[JG]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
.net...

> I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point,
but
> repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines
are.

Certain vaccines, *relative to other pharmaceutical products*,
undoubtedly do have a "low" profit margin. (Don't forget, however, that
manufacturers, thanks to state mandates, have >95% of the market using
their vaccines; a relatively low profit-per-dose adds up.) No company
is going to manufacture an unprofitable product unless somehow forced to
do so. Now, if you wish to claim that the gubmnt (by far the largest
purchaser of vaccines, btw) is forcing vaccine manufacturers to continue
producing supposedly unprofitable vaccines (perhaps the manufacturers,
as compensation, are getting regulatory breaks on other
products/issues?), prove it.

[JG]

"Rich Shewmaker" > wrote in message
...

> Note: Just ONE pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, spent more on
ADVERTISING
> Vioxx than the total gross sales of vaccines by ALL of the
pharmaceutical
> industry worldwide. Where's the vested interest?

Bwahahaha! You moron. (1) Vioxx is manufactured/marketed by MERCK
(though if Pfizer wanted to pick up the advertising tab, I doubt Merck
would complain!). (2) The amount spent on direct-to-consumer Vioxx
advertising is widely reported (do a Google search--you can do THAT,
can't you?) to have been $160.8M (2000); the market for "pediatric"
vaccines ALONE (excluding hepatitis and flu vaccines, for example) was
$2.5B (2001; the market's growing 5-7% each year).
[www.chiron.com/vaccinesoverview.html]

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
> > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
> I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
> organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
> practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

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.

Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

[Beth]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "David Wright" > wrote
> > > Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
> > > and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
> >
> > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
> >
> > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
> >
>
> I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
> organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
> practioners.

What does it matter if it's a small fringe organization? That's
basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
a better one.

The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.

Now either the claims made in the article are true or they are not.
Since they are verifiable claims, and not particularly outlandish
ones, they are not hard to believe. I see no evidence posted that
indicates those claims are false. If you wish to dispute the claims
made, please provide a source or cite.

> And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
strike me as anti-vaccination particularly. It just wasn't
pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
credible, not less.

Beth

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> > > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
> > > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> > > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
> > I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
> > organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
> > practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
>
> 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.

What details? How many physicians are members? How many non-physicians? You
made the claim that it is "almost entirely physicians." Back it up.

> Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
> have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

Big deal.

Jeff

[PF Riley]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:09:47 -0400, "CBI" > wrote:

>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>> Are you doubting that Merck lobbies for removing those vaccine
>> exemptions? Do you think the Merck lobbies for expanding those
>> exemptions? If you have some contrary info or opinions, go ahead
>> and post them.
>
>Sorry, Rog - You made the accusation and so the burden of proof rests with
>you.

Gee, this sounds familiar.

PF

[Jeff Utz]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> > et...
> > > "David Wright" > wrote
> > > > Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe
organization
> > > > and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
> > >
> > > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> > > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
> > >
> > > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> > > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
> > >
> >
> > I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
> > organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
> > practioners.
>
> What does it matter if it's a small fringe organization?

It calls itself a nationwide organization of physicians and surgeons. Yet it
consists of only a few thousand members, not all of whom are physicians (and
it fails to release actual number or percentages of physicians). This seems
a bit ingenuine to me.

> That's
> basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
> slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
> a better one.

A small fringe group is, IMHO, an accurate description of this group. I don'
think it is an ad hominem attack. Being small is not necessary a bad thing.
But the group does not represent most physicians.

> The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
> are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
> conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
> committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
> CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
> their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.

Funny, I have seen these claims many times over. Yet, I yet to see anyone
provide evidence that any of the men or women on the committees changed
their vote or were dishonest.

> Now either the claims made in the article are true or they are not.
> Since they are verifiable claims, and not particularly outlandish
> ones, they are not hard to believe. I see no evidence posted that
> indicates those claims are false. If you wish to dispute the claims
> made, please provide a source or cite.
>
> > And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
>
> What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
> strike me as anti-vaccination particularly.
> It just wasn't
> pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
> credible, not less.

What balance? Almost every one of its statements discourages or questions
vaccination. Does the organization talk about how vaccines saved lives? I
don't think the organization or its leaders are balanced.

All the best,

Jeff

> Beth

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Mark Probert" > wrote
> > Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
> > latter, but not for vaccines?
> > Seems to make perfect sense.
> > I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
> > repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.
>
> The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads for their vaccines,
> because the lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine. Why advertise
> if people don't have a choice anyway?

Then why are there a lot of ads in journals like Pedaitrics for vaccines?

> All they have to do is to pay
> off a few people on some gubmnt committees.

True. What evidence do you have that they have actually done this?

> The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
> profitable, not less.

Really? But they do advertise. Maybe not as much as for other drugs, but
they do advertise.

Jeff

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> > "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
> > > > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
> > > > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
> > > > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm

> > > I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
> > > organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
> > > practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.

> > 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.

> What details? How many physicians are members? How many
non-physicians? You
> made the claim that it is "almost entirely physicians." Back it up.

Why don't YOU back up YOUR claim that "Many, perhaps most, of its
members are not health practioners"? Your statement came first, after
all.

[Jeff Utz]

Go to the website. Anyone can join.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Go to the website. Anyone can join.
>
> So? That certainly doesn't prove your assertion that "Many, perhaps
> most, of its members are not health practioners (sic)."

Correct. However, it does support it. Unfortunately, AAPS does not support
provide any numbers on its membership at all. I would think, because they
are too embarrassed about it.

Jeff

[Gymmie Bob]

Ever see a polio ward in Europe where they never had a vaccination
programme?

I didn't think so.

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...
> (...)
>
> > Ever see a polio ward?
>
> No. Thanks to vaccines.
>
> Jeff
>
>

[Mark Probert]

JG wrote:

> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>
>>I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point,
>
> but
>
>>repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines
>
> are.
>
> Certain vaccines, *relative to other pharmaceutical products*,
> undoubtedly do have a "low" profit margin. (Don't forget, however, that
> manufacturers, thanks to state mandates, have >95% of the market using
> their vaccines; a relatively low profit-per-dose adds up.) No company
> is going to manufacture an unprofitable product unless somehow forced to
> do so. Now, if you wish to claim that the gubmnt (by far the largest
> purchaser of vaccines, btw) is forcing vaccine manufacturers to continue
> producing supposedly unprofitable vaccines (perhaps the manufacturers,
> as compensation, are getting regulatory breaks on other
> products/issues?), prove it.

Firstly, I am not claiming that vaccines are not profitable. Obviously,
they are, and the ones that are not, are no longer made (Lymrix).

However, the pitch, the blather of the anti-vacs would make one thing
that these companies are raking it in hand over fist, and that vaccines
are massive money makers.

With the limited few time at most use, I do not see that happening.

The NSAIDS, anti-depressants, etc. are long term treatments and are the
subject of much advertising, etc. The distinction is logical, and telling.

[Mark Probert]

Beth wrote:

> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>>>"David Wright" > wrote
>>>
>>>>Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
>>>>and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
>>>
>>>No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
>>>are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
>>>
>>>AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
>>>http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
>>>
>>
>>I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
>>organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
>>practioners.
>
>
> What does it matter if it's a small fringe organization? That's
> basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
> slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
> a better one.
>
> The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
> are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
> conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
> committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
> CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
> their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.
>
> Now either the claims made in the article are true or they are not.
> Since they are verifiable claims, and not particularly outlandish
> ones, they are not hard to believe. I see no evidence posted that
> indicates those claims are false. If you wish to dispute the claims
> made, please provide a source or cite.

I suggest that the claims have to be proven. If you read some of the
other letters on the AAPS site, you will see that.

>
>
>> And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
>
>
> What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
> strike me as anti-vaccination particularly. It just wasn't
> pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
> credible, not less.

I read their site again, tonight. They certainly do not have very much
pro-vaccination material. In fact, it appears that the anti-vac is at
leat 10-1 over the pro vac.

[Mark Probert]

JG wrote:

> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any information.
>
>
> Yeah, according to those who disagree with them! Since when does "might
> (numbers) make right," Mark?

Can you point out where I claimed that might made right? No, of course
you cannot,as I did not say it.

I said that AAPS and Orient are not reliable sources of information.

Do you think the public should vote on how
> much money (what percent of tax dollars) out of the total appropriated
> for education should go towards special education (for kids with, say,
> CP or ADHD)?

/sarcasdm mode on/
I wonder why you selected those conditions?
/sarcasm mode off/

BTW, many eminent physicians, including Rep. Ron Paul
> (TX), are AAPS members.

There are members of Congress who belong to segretated organizations.
IOW< so what.

> At any rate, Dr. Orient isn't the source of the information regarding
> vaccine manufacturers' lobbying of state legislators; Dr. Severyn is.
> Care to opine on *her* credibilitiy? (Let me guess; she's an ignorant
> twit intent on murdering infants, ergo anything and everything to which
> she subscribes is hogwash, right? <g>)

You are a bad guesser.

>>The article points out that State health Departments, reputable
> medical
>>institutions, and the CDC advocate for vaccination requirements.
>
>
> Gee, imagine a prominent critic of routine mass vaccination including
> that in an article! What *was* she thinking???

She wasn't.

>>And, they should. They know what the diseases do.
>
>
>>Ever see a polio ward?
>
>
> Not that I can recall. My parents did their best to keep me out of
> hospitals and mostly succeeded; I do remember going to a hospital
> (Walter Reed? ...we were living just outside D.C. at the time) for a
> gamma globulin injection when my brother came down with measles,
> however. (I still came down with 'em.<g>) I did have a very good
> friend who wore a clunky leg brace, though.

I thought so. You donot have personal edxperience. Thus, using jan's
rules, you do not have a valid opinion.

[David Wright]

In article >,
JG > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote in message
.com...
>
>> Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
>> and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
>
>I don't think most members are anti-vaccination per se, they're simply
>opposed to forced (mandatory) vaccination (actually *any* medical
>procedure/treatment that's coerced). See, for example, "AAPS Opposes
>Vaccine Mandates"; go to http://www.aapsonline.org/ and scroll down the
>list on the left-hand side of the page.

Whether the members are opposed to vaccination will have to remain
speculation, since we don't have the ability to survey them.

However, the organization itself has a decidedly anti-vaccination
slant. Consider, for example, the silly article by Geier & Geier that
ran in the March 2003 issue of their "refereed" (or so they brag)
magazine. It purported to show that children were getting horrific
doses of mercury (as thimerosal) from vaccines, and that this was
causing autism, etc.

Since all major childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free, the
article was out of date even when it was published. Furthermore,
publishing this article is something the AAPS web site brags about
(on a different page), *and* they make the claim that removing
thimerosal from vaccines will *eliminate* autism. (The authors of the
paper in question didn't go that far, though they went pretty far.)

While I don't wish autism on anyone, it will be interesting to watch
the AAPS backpedal away from this stance in a few years, when the
autism is still with us despite the mercury being gone. I think we'll
see more spinning than a weight loss class at Gold's Gym.

-- 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)

[Jeff Utz]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...

(...)

> > It calls itself a nationwide organization of physicians and surgeons.
Yet it
> > consists of only a few thousand members, not all of whom are physicians
(and
> > it fails to release actual number or percentages of physicians). This
seems
> > a bit ingenuine to me.
>
> "Nationwide" refers to the location of members, not the numbers. I
> don't presume that every "nationwide" organization is necessarily a
> large one. As for the composition of membership, I haven't seen
> anything to indicate that the majority of members are not physicians
> and surgeons. That some are not is not, in an of itself, an
> indictment of the organization. Many, if not most, professional
> organizations will allow any interested person to join and pay dues.
> I was once a member of a small national organization for women
> engineers. My recollection is that men were allowed to join and pay
> dues, attend meetings, etc. I don't recall any in our section, but I
> believe there were some in others.



> > > That's
> > > basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
> > > slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
> > > a better one.
> >
> > A small fringe group is, IMHO, an accurate description of this group. I
don'
> > think it is an ad hominem attack. Being small is not necessary a bad
thing.
> > But the group does not represent most physicians.
>
> Okay, the group does not represent most physicians and being a small
> fringe groups is not a bad thing. I have no problem with that myself.
> But I took your statement to indicate that you thought I should
> rethink the credibility that I gave the article based on that fact.
> If being a small fringe group is not cause to do that, then why do you
> make that statement? If is is cause to do that, then it's an ad
> hominem argument and unconvincing.

I am calling the group what I think it is. I never suggested that being a
small fringe group is a good or bad thing. It just is what the group, IMHO,
is. Just something to consider when considering its arguements.

> > > The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
> > > are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
> > > conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
> > > committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
> > > CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
> > > their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.
> >
> > Funny, I have seen these claims many times over. Yet, I yet to see
anyone
> > provide evidence that any of the men or women on the committees changed
> > their vote or were dishonest.
>
> Apparently, for years the meetings have been held without accurate
> minutes being released to the public. And the details of all the
> "conflict of Interest" statements are not being released to the public
> either. Exactly what sort of "evidence" would you expect to see?
> Signed confessions?
>
> Besides, the reason bias is such a danger is because for honest
> conscientious folk, which I presume most of those people are, it leads
> to unconscious rationalizations to justify making decisions for
> reasons people aren't consciously aware of. They tend to make the
> decisions that lie in their own best interests because they convince
> themselves that it is what is best for everyone. When so many members
> of the committee have potential conflict of interests and they are all
> in the same direction - pro-vaccination, it's a safe bet that the
> committee as a whole is not giving the anti-vaccination arguments the
> consideration they are due. That is why I find those details given in
> the article to be so disturbing.

Gee, most of the members are physicians. Do you expect them to be
antivaccination? I don't think this is about pro- or anti-vaccination,
though. It is about whether or not a particular vaccine has been shown to be
safe and effective. From what I can tell, the CDC, ACIP and FDA have been
doing a good job of tracking adverse events. One good example is the
problems with the rotavirus vaccine. The VAERS data picked up potential
problems very early after the introduction of the vaccine. THe maker of the
vaccine then pulled the vaccine from the market because of liability
concerns.

> > > Now either the claims made in the article are true or they are not.
> > > Since they are verifiable claims, and not particularly outlandish
> > > ones, they are not hard to believe. I see no evidence posted that
> > > indicates those claims are false. If you wish to dispute the claims
> > > made, please provide a source or cite.
> > >
> > > > And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
> > >
> > > What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
> > > strike me as anti-vaccination particularly.
> > > It just wasn't
> > > pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
> > > credible, not less.
> >
> > What balance? Almost every one of its statements discourages or
questions
> > vaccination. Does the organization talk about how vaccines saved lives?
I
> > don't think the organization or its leaders are balanced.
>
> They seem to be discouraging only some vaccinations, not all. It's
> not a blanket condemnation. I don't consider questioning vaccination
> to be an anti-vaccination stance. A lot of the questions and
> criticisms they leveled make sense to me. I tend to think of the
> anti-vaccination people as being anti ALL vaccinations. Does simply
> asking questions and considering the possibility that some
> vaccinations are not worth the risk make one anti-vaccination?

No. But I look at the organization and its actions over the last 3 or 4
years. That is the impression I get. We are allowed to draw our own
conclusions.

BTW, it doesn't discourage all vaccinations, as you point out. However, it
does not really point out that some vaccines are good (it might say that in
some letters, but it does not give anything like equal weight to the good
vaccines).

Jeff

> Beth

[Jeff Utz]

"Peter Bowditch" > wrote in message
...
> (David Wright) wrote:
>
> >Yeah, they talk about the total worldwide spending on vaccines, which
> >I seem to recall is in the vicinity of $6 billion.
>
> That's about equal to the European sales of St John's Wort. Which is
> not profitable so there is no money for research, of course.

The thing about research on vaccines is that someone (presumable the people
doing the studies) own the patent on the vaccine being studied. So, if you
show that a vaccine prevents disease, at least you have sole marketing
rights for several years. If you show that St. John's Work or a vitamin
works at something, you don't gain a marketing advantage. Anyone can use
your research to increase their sailes. The same thing is true with patented
drugs. That is why drug makers pushed all the new antihypertensive
medications -- they can sell them for more than generic drugs that have been
used for decades.

Jeff

> --
> Peter Bowditch
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
> I'm a Bright. Are you?

[David Wright]

In article >,
Jeff Utz > wrote:
>
>Go to the website. Anyone can join.

But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
members, or some similar term.

-- 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]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>> > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
>> > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
>> > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
>> > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
>> I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
>> organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
>> practioners. And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
>
>Do you or David Wright ever give evidence to support what
>you say?

Bwahahaha! Says Roger, the king of the unsupported assertion.
If you'll cast your mind back a few days, Roger, you'll recall
that this thread got rolling via one of your typical unsupported
assertions, for which you have since provided no evidence.

> The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,

There is no way to know this.

>and they support voluntary vaccination. See the above web
>site for details.

I did. They didn't exactly fall all over themselves recommending
vaccination, now did they?

>Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
>have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has.

So?

-- 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]

In article >,
Beth > wrote:
>"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
>> et...
>> > "David Wright" > wrote
>> > > Do keep in mind, though, that the AAPS is a small, fringe organization
>> > > and is decidedly anti-vaccination. Just so you know.
>> >
>> > No. AAPS does not oppose vaccination. It has members who
>> > are peds and who give vaccines regularly.
>> >
>> > AAPS supports informed consent for vaccines. See:
>> > http://aapsonline.org/testimony/vacresol.htm
>> >
>>
>> I concur with David Wright. The organization is a small, fringe
>> organization. Many, perhaps most, of its members are not health
>> practioners.
>
>What does it matter if it's a small fringe organization? That's
>basically an ad hominem argument, which I don't find persuasive in the
>slightest. Such arguments are usually presented due to the absence of
>a better one.

Not really. In a case like this one, we have to ask "why is it a
small organization? Is it something about their belief system?"

>The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
>are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
>conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary

I assume you mean "advisory" there.

>committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
>CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
>their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.

My reading of the article was that, given the funding setup for
research that exists today, it's hard to find a "big name" in the
field who hasn't, at some point, taken research money from the
vaccine manufacturers. This may be a less-than-perfect state of
affairs, and I'd like to see it change, but, for now, we're stuck
with it. The alternative would seem to be to staff the committee
with non-experts. That's not an improvement, to my mind.

>> And, by its actions, it is anti-vaccination.
>
>What are you referring to here. What I read on their site didn't
>strike me as anti-vaccination particularly. It just wasn't
>pro-vaccination either. That balance makes their organization more
>credible, not less.

It struck me as anti-vaccination particularly, but I don't know how
much you know about vaccination.

-- 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)

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:49:20 -0400, "Jeff Utz"
> wrote:
>
>"JG" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Go to the website. Anyone can join.
>>
>> So? That certainly doesn't prove your assertion that "Many, perhaps
>> most, of its members are not health practioners (sic)."
>
>Correct. However, it does support it. Unfortunately, AAPS does not support
>provide any numbers on its membership at all. I would think, because they
>are too embarrassed about it.

You are such a goober.

PF

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > wrote
> Whether the members are opposed to vaccination will have to remain
> speculation, since we don't have the ability to survey them.

You made the unsupported assertion, and as usual, failed to
provide any evidence.

I happen to know AAPS members that support vaccination.
Check out the AAPS web page. AAPS expresses its opinions
there. They are not opposed to vaccination.

> magazine. It purported to show that children were getting horrific
> doses of mercury (as thimerosal) from vaccines, and that this was
> causing autism, etc.

It is not just AAPS that is concerned about mercury in vaccines.
Also the FDA, CDC, EPA, Congress, etc.

> Since all major childhood vaccines are now thimerosal-free, the
> article was out of date even when it was published.

According to the PDR, several of the vaccines still contain thimerosal.

[Jeff Utz]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Jeff Utz > wrote:
> >
> >Go to the website. Anyone can join.
>
> But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
> professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
> members, or some similar term.

Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on full or any
other members.

Jeff

> -- 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)
>

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Beth" > wrote
> > Many, if not most, professional
> > organizations will allow any interested person to join and pay dues.
> > I was once a member of a small national organization for women
> > engineers. My recollection is that men were allowed to join and pay
> > dues, attend meetings, etc. I don't recall any in our section, but I
> > believe there were some in others.
>
> For that matter, a non-engineer could probably join and pay dues
> also. But hardly anyone would. I am sure that AAPS is 99%
> physicians. Certainly all of the leadership is.
>
>
Why are you so sure?

[Beth]

(David Wright) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Beth > wrote:
> >"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> >> et...
> >> > "David Wright" > wrote
> >The claims regarding the CDC made in the article the link posted to
> >are verifiable. The ones I find most disturbing relate to the
> >conflict of interest of the members of the vaccine adversary
>
> I assume you mean "advisory" there.

Yes. Sorry about the typo.

>
> >committee. Such bias on the part of the committee members makes the
> >CDC recommendations suspect and I already have concerns regarding
> >their data collection system on adverse vaccination reactions.
>
> My reading of the article was that, given the funding setup for
> research that exists today, it's hard to find a "big name" in the
> field who hasn't, at some point, taken research money from the
> vaccine manufacturers. This may be a less-than-perfect state of
> affairs, and I'd like to see it change, but, for now, we're stuck
> with it. The alternative would seem to be to staff the committee
> with non-experts. That's not an improvement, to my mind.

First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. It's possible that such
experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
My take on it, especially after having read a few threads on
vaccination, is that anyone who doesn't support the current CDC policy
wholeheartly is considered to be *anti-vaccination*. If the same
attitude is present within the administration of the CDC, I would
guess that such a person would not be considered for inclusion on the
committee.

Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
them personally.

Beth

[Mark Probert]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Mark Probert" > wrote
>
>>Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
>>latter, but not for vaccines?
>>Seems to make perfect sense.
>>I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
>>repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.
>
>
> The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads for their vaccines,
> because the lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine.

The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads? Most curious. I have
not seen them. Perhaps I should look in Good Housekeeping.

Why advertise
> if people don't have a choice anyway? All they have to do is to pay
> off a few people on some gubmnt committees.

There ya go..an unproven allegations, which you are a recognized expert
in making.

> The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
> profitable, not less.


Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.

BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.

[Mark Probert]

David Wright wrote:

> In article >,
> Mark Probert > wrote:
>
>>Rich Shewmaker wrote:
>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
(David Wright) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact that you have no evidence is enough for me. I don't
>>>>>>doubt that Merck would be pleased if there were fewer vaccine
>>>>>>exemptions, but whether its worth their while (on a cost/benefit
>>>>>>basis) to lobby for such changes is an open question.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, what brings in the most money to the Evil Organized
>>>>>Medicine Conspiracy: A $20 vaccine given during a $100 office
>>>>>visit or a kid in intensive care for three weeks with whooping
>>>>>cough?
>>>>
>>>>And to top it off, the hospitalized individual will be treated with
>>>>many medications, made by the same companies that makes vaccines, and
>>>>costing a hell of a lot more. The idea that vaccines are better for
>>>>the bottom line than no vaccines is merely idiotic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Besides, look at the dosing schedule. A vaccine is given at a rate of one
>>>dose every five years at the most. Is this a picture of a profitable
>>>product? Pharmaceutical companies make their big profits on meds like
>>>NSAIDS, and antidepressants, and drugs for GERD and hypertension.
>>
>>
>>Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
>>latter, but not for vaccines?
>>
>>Seems to make perfect sense.
>>
>>I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
>>repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.
>
>
> Yeah, they talk about the total worldwide spending on vaccines, which
> I seem to recall is in the vicinity of $6 billion. That's a fair
> chunk of change, but it's not exactly all profit, it's split across a
> number of companies, and it's pretty pale stuff compared to a really
> hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
> billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
> vaccines.

Good point. Contained within the $6B are vaccines provided to counties
which have no way of paying for them.

> I will also note in passing that making vitamins is profitable too.
> Unlike vaccines, I don't recall any large drugmakers getting out of
> the vitamin biz.

This is a point I regularly bring up. Who needs R&D costs wrt vitamins?
Find a clever name, make a pretty pill, and, voila! off to market!

I used to annoy the Phyto-bears salescritters with asking them if they
had ever heard of Rita-bears? These guys sell a pill for vitamins to
kids who should be getting their nutrition from a balanced diet. They
are addicting kids to popping a pill instead of learning good nutrition.

[Mark Probert]

Gymmie Bob wrote:

> Ever see a polio ward in Europe where they never had a vaccination
> programme?
>
> I didn't think so.

One more:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/polio.html

Note the picture.

[Mark Probert]

David Wright wrote:


>>The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,
>
>
> There is no way to know this.

IIRC, Andy is their counsel.

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> "David Wright" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,

> > Jeff Utz > wrote:

> > >Go to the website. Anyone can join.

> > But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
> > professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
> > members, or some similar term.

> Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on full or
any
> other members.

Define "does not provide." Do you mean doesn't have available on its
Web site, or won't divulge the numbers to someone who inquires (politely
and literately)?

[JG]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
et...
> David Wright wrote:

> >>The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,

> > There is no way to know this.

> IIRC, Andy is their counsel.

Aren't they fortunate!

[Roger Schlafly]

"Beth" > wrote
> > My reading of the article was that, given the funding setup for
> > research that exists today, it's hard to find a "big name" in the
> > field who hasn't, at some point, taken research money from the
> > vaccine manufacturers.
> First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. It's possible that such
> experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existent.

Yes, I don't believe it either. There are 1000s of excellent
scientists and others who would make excellent choices.

> My take on it, especially after having read a few threads on
> vaccination, is that anyone who doesn't support the current CDC policy
> wholeheartly is considered to be *anti-vaccination*. If the same
> attitude is present within the administration of the CDC, I would
> guess that such a person would not be considered for inclusion on the
> committee.

That's right. The committees are not chosen to represent the public.
They are chosen to rubber-stamp official policy. They even take
nominations from drug companies!

> Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
> have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
> few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
> it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
> on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
> decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
> them personally.

They should all be unbiased. Most of the decisions are policy
decisions, so non-experts and other points of view should be
represented. But they don't want that -- they just want to promote
vaccines.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

[JG]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
et...
> Roger Schlafly wrote:

> > The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
> > profitable, not less.

> Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.

> BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.

Wake up, Mark; surely you've seen ads (national TV and "mainstream"
magazines) for Flintstone, Bugs Bunny, Centrum (a Wyeth/Lederle product,
none of which will *ever* cross my threshold), and One A Day (Bayer)
vitamins (hmmm...just how many different formulations *do* the latter
two currently manufacture?--talk about market segregation!), as well as
ads (local) for chiropractors (a bunch around here are currently
pitching both "back to school" exams and free initial "consultations").
Pick up any "natural health" magazine (our local health food stores have
complimentary copies of "Delicious Living") and check out the ads for
various herbal supplements, THEN try claiming that "there is no
competition"!

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > wrote
> hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
> billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
> vaccines.

So you are backing off your argument, and now claiming that
vaccines are not the most profitable drugs ever invented. You
are probably correct. Vaccines are extremely lucrative and
profitable, but not the most profitable drugs ever invented.

[Mark Probert]

JG wrote:

> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
>
>>>The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
>>>profitable, not less.
>
>
>>Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.
>
>
>>BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.
>
>
> Wake up, Mark; surely you've seen ads (national TV and "mainstream"
> magazines) for Flintstone, Bugs Bunny, Centrum (a Wyeth/Lederle product,
> none of which will *ever* cross my threshold), and One A Day (Bayer)
> vitamins (hmmm...just how many different formulations *do* the latter
> two currently manufacture?--talk about market segregation!), as well as
> ads (local) for chiropractors (a bunch around here are currently
> pitching both "back to school" exams and free initial "consultations").
> Pick up any "natural health" magazine (our local health food stores have
> complimentary copies of "Delicious Living") and check out the ads for
> various herbal supplements, THEN try claiming that "there is no
> competition"!

I was unclear. For vaccines, there is no competition.

As for unnecessary vitamins, there is.

[Mark Probert]

JG wrote:

> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>David Wright wrote:
>
>
>>>>The AAPS membership is almost entirely physicians,
>
>
>>>There is no way to know this.
>
>
>>IIRC, Andy is their counsel.
>
>
> Aren't they fortunate!

I do not know how good an attoney he is.

However, it does lend credence to the claim they are anti-vac.

:)

[Jeff Utz]

I emailed the asking how many members they have and what
percentage are MDs and DOs.

No answer.

I was unable to find membership numbers on the site.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
> > > professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
> > > members, or some similar term.
> > Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on full or
any
> > other members.
>
> If you don't have any numbers, then where is your evidence that
> the members are not health practitioners. What do you think
> that they are? Why would 1000s of non-health-practitioners
> be joining an organizations of physicians?
>
> You badger me for evidence for something you know to be
> probably true anyway, and then you make these completely
> silly and false statements.
>

Roger wrote: "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.

Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has." (Message-ID:
>).

So provide evidence it is "almost entirely physicians." All we know for
certain is that the organization does not provide membership numbers and
invites non-professionals to join.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

I see you improved your FAQ.

I still wonder who actually asks you these questions.

I like how carefully you worded the question about who nominates members of
the ACIP. You said the vaccine makers and others. Interestingly, the people
who prepared the recommendations for the Small Pox vaccine and the Influenza
vaccine were all employees of the CDC.

Of the members of the committee in Feb. 2003, about 11 are MDs at
universities and state health departments + one member who was not an MD.

Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians specialty
groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
rounded to me.

Now, your suggestion that they were nominated by the drug makers is rather
misleading, at best. It appears most are representives of either physicians
groups, the CDC or health departments, with some representation from
insurance cos. and drug companies (which is reasonable, after all, they pay
for and make the stuff).

Can you show how your statement is not misleading? I mean, can you show that
the drug companies nominate a lot of members? And the CDC takes the
nominations seriously (or that a large proportion of the nominees become
members)?

Jeff

[Beth]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Beth" > wrote

> > Secondly, it's extremely important that the make-up of the committee
> > have some unbiased persons aboard and I would favor having at least a
> > few non-experts for that reason if that was the only way to achieve
> > it. It's easier for an intelligent person to bring themself up-to-date
> > on the field than it is to put aside personal biases and make
> > decisions without considering at some level how decisions will affect
> > them personally.
>
> They should all be unbiased. Most of the decisions are policy
> decisions, so non-experts and other points of view should be
> represented. But they don't want that -- they just want to promote
> vaccines.

Well, realistically, I don't think it's possible to assemble a
completely unbiased group of experts about anything. It is possible
to be aware of obvious sources of bias - which is why things like
"conflict of interest" disclosures are routine in our society - and
work to minimize the impact such biases will have in making decisions.

When I read that ALL the committee members have filed "conflict of
interest" statements, that the content of those statements will not be
released to the general public, and that accurate committee meeting
minutes were non-existant for most of the lifespan of the committee
and only recently begun being provided under duress...well, all those
things combine to set off a red flag for me.

The combination of those things tell me that this committee is trying
hard to prevent others from scrutinizing their work. Understandable,
no one likes their work scrutinized, but its part and parcel of being
on a committee that gets to set public policy. That's why we have open
meeting laws and require conflict of interest statements to be on
file. Not allowing the public access to such documentation seems very
suspicious to me. I begin to wonder, what are they hiding?

> Vaccine Policy FAQ
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > Then why are there a lot of ads in journals like Pedaitrics for
vaccines?
>
> That is how the drug companies pay off AAP. They need the official
> gubmnt mandates, but they also want the AAP endorsements for
> the vaccines.
>

Really? Could it be that there is more than on maker of certain vaccines,
and the drug companies are competing against each other? Could it be that
the ads remind and encourage doctors to vaccinate with new vaccines (like
when varicella vaccine came out a few years ago)?

What do the vaccine companies get for this supposed pay-off?

Who makes the AAP endorsements? The editor of the Journal? Or a committee of
pediatricians who are experts on infectious disease?

What about all the other journals that carry vaccine ads?

This is the original message to which Roger is posting is below. Note how he
convinently snipped off his prior claim that drug makers don't advertise
vaccines.

My vote for the weasle move of the month.

JEff


"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Mark Probert" > wrote
> > Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
> > latter, but not for vaccines?
> > Seems to make perfect sense.
> > I note the anti-vacs never seem to address this very salient point, but
> > repeatedly repeat their bogus claims about how profitable vaccines are.
>
> The drug companies do need to place a lot of ads for their vaccines,
> because the lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine. Why advertise
> if people don't have a choice anyway?

Then why are there a lot of ads in journals like Pedaitrics for vaccines?

> All they have to do is to pay
> off a few people on some gubmnt committees.

True. What evidence do you have that they have actually done this?

> The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
> profitable, not less.

Really? But they do advertise. Maybe not as much as for other drugs, but
they do advertise.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > wrote
> > hot drug. A single blockbuster drug can have sales in the multiple
> > billions of dollars per year, and is far more profitable than
> > vaccines.
>
> So you are backing off your argument, and now claiming that
> vaccines are not the most profitable drugs ever invented. You
> are probably correct. Vaccines are extremely lucrative and
> profitable, but not the most profitable drugs ever invented.
>

Personally, I see nothing wrong with making money with life-save drugs.

[JG]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
t...
> JG wrote:

> > "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> > .net...

> >>AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any information.

> > Yeah, according to those who disagree with them! Since when does
"might
> > (numbers) make right," Mark?

> Can you point out where I claimed that might made right? No, of course
> you cannot,as I did not say it.

Your comment ("AAPS and Jane Orient are not reliable sources of any
information") was immediately followed by "...State health Departments,
reputable medical institutions, and the CDC advocate for vaccination
requirements." I inferred--as I believe most people would--that you
somehow believe these latter three are more credible because of their
size and/or their power/authority (in the case of state health
departments and the CDC). My apologies if my inference was wrong (and
if was, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain just *why* the AAPS
isn't credible).

> I said that AAPS and Orient are not reliable sources of information.

Again, *why* aren't they credible? What criticism do you have of their
"mission":

"Since 1943, AAPS has been the only national association of physicians
in all specialties dedicated to preserving and protecting the sanctity
of the patient-physician relationship. AAPS believes this
patient-physician relationship must be free from all third-party
interference -- whether from the government, insurance companies, or
healthcare plans. We believe patients' ability to choose their
physicians and care that's best for their needs is inviolable."

Or of their various positions/actions:

"*Fights increased government control of the practice of medicine
*Opposes increased government power to criminalize medicine and
prosecute physicians
*Supports unrestricted private contracting with Medicare patients
*Opposes national provider ID and central patient database
*Sued the government to stop enforcement of HIPAA regulations
*Taken legal action to support numerous physicians defend themselves "

(all from http://www.aapsonline.org/; "Membership Information")

> Do you think the public should vote on how
> > much money (what percent of tax dollars) out of the total
appropriated
> > for education should go towards special education (for kids with,
say,
> > CP or ADHD)?

> /sarcasdm mode on/
> I wonder why you selected those conditions?
> /sarcasm mode off/

Because they're near and dear to your heart, of course. Seriously, if
you think numbers (i.e., true, direct democracy) should determine
credibility or worthiness, voters might conceivably (indeed, I think
probably) would decide that education dollars are better spent on
"regular" students than on SPED kids. (An aside: The Colorado Springs
city council just voted to put a measure on November's ballot that would
raise property taxes, with the funds generated going to a private
agency--The Resource Exchange--that provides various forms of assistance
for persons with certain disabilities. Because only those with
*specified* disabilities [as opposed to all disabled individuals] would
benefit, I think rational people will vote against the measure. See the
article below.)

> BTW, many eminent physicians, including Rep. Ron Paul
> > (TX), are AAPS members.

> There are members of Congress who belong to segretated organizations.
> IOW< so what.

I'll take Paul over Bob Byrd any day. Paul's a man OF character, not
simply A character.

[...]

> >>Ever see a polio ward?

> > Not that I can recall. My parents did their best to keep me out of
> > hospitals and mostly succeeded; I do remember going to a hospital
> > (Walter Reed? ...we were living just outside D.C. at the time) for a
> > gamma globulin injection when my brother came down with measles,
> > however. (I still came down with 'em.<g>) I did have a very good
> > friend who wore a clunky leg brace, though.

> I thought so. You donot have personal edxperience. Thus, using jan's
> rules, you do not have a valid opinion.

Who's jan? (And I suppose *you* have seen, "live and in person," polio
wards, giving you, according to jan, a "valid" opinion? <g>)

======================================
www.gazette.com, 8/8/03
Tax for disabled headed to ballot
El Paso County voters will decide in November whether to increase
property tax rates to pay for services to people with severe
disabilities.

County commissioners voted 4-1 Thursday to put the measure on the
ballot. Two commissioners who initially expressed doubts about the plan,
Chuck Brown and Jeri Howells, said supporters persuaded them to ask
voters to decide on the tax increase.

The tax would raise an estimated $4.3 million in El Paso County in the
first year, adding about $18 to the property tax bill on a house worth
$200,000. The yearly total would increase as property values and
population go up.

Commissioner Jim Bensberg opposed putting the measure on the ballot. He
said the tax would be a burden to some homeowners, particularly senior
citizens.

Bensberg also opposed the measure because the tax money would go to The
Resource Exchange, a nonprofit agency authorized in state law but which
is not a government agency.

"You talk about accountability, but there is no direct county oversight
of this agency," Bensberg told supporters of the measure.

Other commissioners said the tax will bring needed help to people with
developmental disabilities such as cerebral palsy, autism and mental
retardation.

"I prefer to live in a community that has a social conscience,"
Commissioner Tom Huffman said.

The Resource Exchange services range from basic hygiene to help finding
a job. It also serves Park and Teller counties, where commissioners have
approved putting the measure on their ballots. Money would go only to
the counties where the measure passes.

Ellen Marshall, who is disabled, told commissioners The Resource
Exchange helps people who otherwise might not participate in society.

"We've been put in the closet, so to speak. We've also been denied the
services that 'normal' people have," Marshall said.

Anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce urged commissioners not to put the
measure on the ballot. Bruce wrote the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights,
an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that requires voter approval
for new taxes. He said the government should not get involved in
services such as the ones The Resource Exchange provides.

"Government is not an insurance company, a hospital or a charity," he
told the commissioners. "You would be undermining, with good intentions,
family responsibility by extending the role of government."

[JG]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...

> > "Jeff Utz" > wrote

> > > > But if I recall correctly, only physicians (and some related
> > > > professions?) can be full members. Others can be associate
> > > > members, or some similar term.
> > > Correct. However, the organization does not provide numbers on
full or
> any
> > > other members.

> > If you don't have any numbers, then where is your evidence that
> > the members are not health practitioners. What do you think
> > that they are? Why would 1000s of non-health-practitioners
> > be joining an organizations of physicians?

> > You badger me for evidence for something you know to be
> > probably true anyway, and then you make these completely
> > silly and false statements.

> Roger wrote: "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.

> Sure, AAPS is small compared to the AMA, and does not
> have the huge outside revenue sources that the AMA has." (Message-ID:
> >).

> So provide evidence it is "almost entirely physicians." All we know
for
> certain is that the organization does not provide membership numbers
and
> invites non-professionals to join.

AGAIN, Jeff, you first asserted that "Many, perhaps most, of its
[AAPS's] members are not health practioners (sic)." According to the
apparent "rules" of m.k.h., which YOU have indicated you support, it's
up to you to prove your assertion, not Roger (or anyone) to disprove it.

I concur with Riley (lo and behold!): You ARE a goober. (BTW, what's
"ingenuine"?)

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote
> > And wasn't Roger the mathematician who helped the AAPS prove that when
> > you compare 1/5,000 with 3/10,000 the answer is 1/30 because 1/5,000
> > (the measured value) is really 1/100,000?
>
> This appears to be an obscure reference to the analysis that
> caused the rotavirus vaccine to be withdrawn from the market.
> Maybe you were not persuaded, but the FDA, CDC, and the
> vaccine maker were all persuaded, and the rotavirus vaccine
> is still off the market.

Actually, the FDA and CDC felt that the vaccine should be temporarily
withdrawn while the situation is more carefully evaluated. The vaccine maker
withdrew the vaccine and kept it off the market because of liability
concerns.

Jeff

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
specialty
> groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
> diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
> company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
> rounded to me.

No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
stooges. I'd like to see:

1 member nominated by AAPS.
1 member nominated by NVIC.
1 member who is a non-medical scientist with expertise in
policy and risk analysis.
Several members who are demonstrably untainted by drug money.
At least 1 member who is appropriately skeptical of confidential
drug company data.
1 member representing the public at large.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> Really? Could it be that there is more than on maker of certain vaccines,
....

Sure.

> Who makes the AAP endorsements? The editor of the Journal? Or a committee
of
> pediatricians who are experts on infectious disease?

Actually, the AAP just rubberstamps the CDC/ACIP schedule.

> This is the original message to which Roger is posting is below. Note how
he
> convinently snipped off his prior claim that drug makers don't advertise
> vaccines.

Huhh? Your quotes do not back you up.

Mark said:
> > > Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for the
> > > latter, but not for vaccines?

I said (with typos corrected):
> > The drug companies don't need to place a lot of ads for their vaccines,
> > because they lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine. Why advertise
> > if people don't have a choice anyway?

Neither of us said that there are no vaccine ads anywhere at all.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Beth" > wrote
> Well, realistically, I don't think it's possible to assemble a
> completely unbiased group of experts about anything.

That's right, but it is possible to make sure that diverse points of
view are represented, and to have open meetings.

> The combination of those things tell me that this committee is trying
> hard to prevent others from scrutinizing their work. Understandable,
> no one likes their work scrutinized, but its part and parcel of being
> on a committee that gets to set public policy. That's why we have open
> meeting laws and require conflict of interest statements to be on
> file. Not allowing the public access to such documentation seems very
> suspicious to me. I begin to wonder, what are they hiding?

Yes. Right. They are hiding weaknesses in their case for vaccine
mandates.

[David Wright]

In article >,
Mark Probert > wrote:
>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
>> The lower marketing expenses for vaccines makes them more
>> profitable, not less.
>
>Just like supplements, herbs, chiropractic, etc.
>
>BTW, they do not have to advertise, since there is no competition.

Now that Mark has made it clear that he was referring to vaccines, not
supplements, I must point out that he's incorrect; there are competing
vaccines of some types.

For those who'd like to know which vaccines still have thimerosal in
them, and how much, see this link:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm


-- 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)

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Beth wrote:

> First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. It's possible that such
> experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
> My take on it, especially after having read a few threads on
> vaccination, is that anyone who doesn't support the current CDC policy
> wholeheartly is considered to be anti-vaccination. If the same
> attitude is present within the administration of the CDC, I would
> guess that such a person would not be considered for inclusion on the
> committee.

The problem with all of this "vested interest" smokescreen is
that it starts from the premise that *any* connection to *any*
pharmaceutical corporation at any time automatically makes
the person in question a mindless slave to *all* pharmaceutical
corporations for all time.

Even were the "influence" supposition correct, the companies
involved are more often bitter rivals than allies.

--
| 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

[Roger Schlafly]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote
> The problem with all of this "vested interest" smokescreen is
> that it starts from the premise that *any* connection to *any*
> pharmaceutical corporation at any time automatically makes
> the person in question a mindless slave to *all* pharmaceutical
> corporations for all time.

Whose premise is that? I do get worried when they say that
the only people who can be found to support the ACIP policy
are those who have been paid off by the vaccine lobby.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:


>No, but I expect the committee as a whole to be unbiased when making
>decisions that affect the public at large. If one or two people have
>a conflict of interest, the committee is likely large enough that such
>bias won't make a large difference in their procedings. If everyone
>on the committee has a conflict of interest regarding the vaccine
>industry, that doesn't bode well for unbiased recommendations.

Beth -
The number of persons involved in vaccine research - the
experts you WANT on the committee - is small. The number of
institutions and corporations doing vaccine research and
production is also small. The available talent pool is so small
that it is impossible to find any experts that have not, at one
time or another, worked with or for a manufacturer.

It's like finding anyone in Hollywood who has not worked with
someone who has worked with someone who has worked with Kevin
Bacon: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/oracle/



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(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?

>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?

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote:

>"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>> Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
>specialty
>> groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
>> diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
>> company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
>> rounded to me.
>
>No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
>stooges.

Proof please?


Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
> specialty
> > groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
> > diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
> > company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
> > rounded to me.
>
> No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
> stooges.

Well demonstrate to us that they are "drug company stooges."

> I'd like to see:
>
> 1 member nominated by AAPS.
> 1 member nominated by NVIC.
> 1 member who is a non-medical scientist with expertise in
> policy and risk analysis.
> Several members who are demonstrably untainted by drug money.
> At least 1 member who is appropriately skeptical of confidential
> drug company data.
> 1 member representing the public at large.
>
>

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > Really? Could it be that there is more than on maker of certain
vaccines,
> ...
>
> Sure.
>
> > Who makes the AAP endorsements? The editor of the Journal? Or a
committee
> of
> > pediatricians who are experts on infectious disease?
>
> Actually, the AAP just rubberstamps the CDC/ACIP schedule.

Really? Why, in the recent past, have there been differences between AAP
recommendations the ACIP schedule (I think you pointed them out on your
"FAQs" in the past)? The recommendations are made the Committee on
Infectious Diseases of the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. It makes great
sense for the AAP to adopt the same schedule as the ACIP if the ACIP is a
good schedule, even if it does not agree to all the details. I beleive that
is why the ACIP and AAP schedules are so close.

It is in the best interest of the kids and their parents to have one clear
schedule, rather than competing schedules from the AAFP, AAP and ACIP.
However, the AAP does not rubber stamp the schedule, but reviews the
schedule and will make other recommendations if it sees fit.

> > This is the original message to which Roger is posting is below. Note
how
> he
> > convinently snipped off his prior claim that drug makers don't advertise
> > vaccines.
>
> Huhh? Your quotes do not back you up.

Nice weasle move. I see you have the moves down pat. In one place you say
they don't have to place a lot of ads, then you say they place ads to pay
off the AAP, but you never answered the question why they place ads in other
journals. (In fact, you deleted the question without indicating that fact.)

All the best,

Jeff

> Mark said:
> > > > Hmmm.so that explains why we see ads in magazines, and on TV, for
the
> > > > latter, but not for vaccines?
>
> I said (with typos corrected):
> > > The drug companies don't need to place a lot of ads for their
vaccines,
> > > because they lobby the gubmnt to mandate the vaccine. Why advertise
> > > if people don't have a choice anyway?
>
> Neither of us said that there are no vaccine ads anywhere at all.
>
>

[Beth]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> In >, Beth wrote:
>
> > First, I have difficulty believing that there are NO experts without
> > financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. It's possible that such
> > experts are few and far between, but I doubt they are non-existant.
> > My take on it, especially after having read a few threads on
> > vaccination, is that anyone who doesn't support the current CDC policy
> > wholeheartly is considered to be anti-vaccination. If the same
> > attitude is present within the administration of the CDC, I would
> > guess that such a person would not be considered for inclusion on the
> > committee.
>
> The problem with all of this "vested interest" smokescreen is

Excuse me, this isn't a smokescreen, this a real concern of mine. And
it doesn't mean that I think that

> > that it starts from the premise that *any* connection to *any*
> pharmaceutical corporation at any time automatically makes
> the person in question a mindless slave to *all* pharmaceutical
> corporations for all time.

It means that I have concerns about how much such influence affects
the decision making process. That's not a) minor or b) unreasonable.
In fact, that's the reason that people in public policy making
positions are required to file conflict of interest statements. So
that others can judge for themselves what the extent of the influence
is likely to be, both for the individuals involved and for the
committee as a whole.

When valid reasonable concerns along those lines are raised, it
doesn't help your position to set up a straw man, as you did above
with the starting premise you attribute to my concerns, and then
dismiss the concerns as being equivalent to that straw man.

> Even were the "influence" supposition correct, the companies
> involved are more often bitter rivals than allies.

Rivals within a single industry often have an mutual interest in what
policies are set regarding their industry. It doesn't preclude their
working together to try and achieve something that will be to their
mutual benefit, even if it is detrimental to society as a whole.
That's why cartels occur and why they are illegal.

Beth

[Beth]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (Beth) wrote:
>
>
> >No, but I expect the committee as a whole to be unbiased when making
> >decisions that affect the public at large. If one or two people have
> >a conflict of interest, the committee is likely large enough that such
> >bias won't make a large difference in their procedings. If everyone
> >on the committee has a conflict of interest regarding the vaccine
> >industry, that doesn't bode well for unbiased recommendations.
>
> Beth -
> The number of persons involved in vaccine research - the
> experts you WANT on the committee - is small.

Who says that we only WANT vaccine researchers on the committee? One
doesn't have to have done vaccine research in order to study it and
help formulate public policy, though a background in public health
issues would certainly be a desireable and reasonable qualification.
And Roger's suggestion that the committee have at least one member who
is an expert in policy and risk analysis is well taken.

> The number of
> institutions and corporations doing vaccine research and
> production is also small. The available talent pool is so small
> that it is impossible to find any experts that have not, at one
> time or another, worked with or for a manufacturer.

Sorry, the only way to make that argument work is to define an
*expert* eligible to serve on the committee so narrowly that you end
up excluding other points of view. The end result: Bias in the
decision making process on the pro-vaccination side. That's why I
find it disturbing that apparently the CDC is doing exactly that.

Beth

[Beth]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (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.

> >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.
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.

Beth

[Roger Schlafly]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > 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.

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"Jeff Utz" > wrote
>> Of the ACIP working group, many were representatives of physicians
>specialty
>> groups (peds, Ob/gyn, internal medicine, family practice, infectious
>> diseases), one was health plan organization representative, one a drug
>> company group representative, some worked for the CDC. Seems pretty well
>> rounded to me.
>
>No, it is not well rounded, because they are all drug company
>stooges. I'd like to see:
>
>1 member nominated by AAPS.
>1 member nominated by NVIC.
>1 member who is a non-medical scientist with expertise in
>policy and risk analysis.
>Several members who are demonstrably untainted by drug money.
>At least 1 member who is appropriately skeptical of confidential
>drug company data.
>1 member representing the public at large.

Speaking of conflicts of interest, Roger, how come you didn't tell us
that AAPS had published an article by you?

-- 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)

[CBI]

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Sorry, Rog - You made the accusation and so the burden of proof rests
with
> >you.
>
> Gee, this sounds familiar.

The silence that follows sounds familiar as well.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>
> 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?

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Peter Bowditch" > wrote
> > And wasn't Roger the mathematician who helped the AAPS prove that when
> > you compare 1/5,000 with 3/10,000 the answer is 1/30 because 1/5,000
> > (the measured value) is really 1/100,000?
>
> This appears to be an obscure reference to the analysis that
> caused the rotavirus vaccine to be withdrawn from the market.
> Maybe you were not persuaded, but the FDA, CDC, and the
> vaccine maker were all persuaded, and the rotavirus vaccine
> is still off the market

As a result of the withdrawal we are now failing to prevent 40,000
hospitalizations and 16 deaths per year (vs the 0-1 deaths per year the
vaccine would have caused).

Strong work, Rog. You're a real child advocate.

The fact is that the vaccine saved lives and reduced morbidity but would
have been a legal nightmare for the company because they would have been
blamed for twice the number of intussusceptions than it caused. It was not
the FDA or the CDC that caused its removal but rather the ABA.

--
CBI, MD

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > wrote
> Speaking of conflicts of interest, Roger, how come you didn't tell us
> that AAPS had published an article by you?

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.

I also have a brother who is a practicing physician, is a member
of AAPS, and served a term on the AAPS board. He also
vaccinated his kids. My brother Andy is a lawyer who does
some legal work for AAPS. My mom has written several
columns related to vaccination.

If I were sitting on some gubmnt policymaking committee,
and companies were paying me money while I was making
decisions that benefit those companies, then I'd have a conflict.
As it is, I have no conflicts, but I am happy to disclose the
above info anyone. It is all on the net.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

[Beth]

(Beth) wrote in message >...
> Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> > (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?!!!


Just as an aside - is this really true? It's a statement of the sort I
tend to believe because it can be verified and if it wasn't true, I
would expect to see someone posting evidence to disprove it. So far I
haven't seen anyone dispute this as being fact; in fact, I'm the first
one to even question it. If it's not true, I'd sure like to know. It
would reduce the credibility of the original source far more than any
of the disparagements presented so far - i.e. small, fringe,
anyone-can-join, etc. As it is, I'm assuming it's true and if true, I
find it alarming.

Beth

[Roger Schlafly]

"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?

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.

[Roger Schlafly]

"D. C. Sessions" > 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?!!! That's not good.
> Why not?

For one thing, it undermines the credibility of the committees.
The FDA and CDC have these committees so they can say that
their policies are endorsed by an independent panel of experts.
But when it turns out that the panel is really just a bunch of
vaccine industry stooges, then it makes me less likely to follow
the conclusions, because I infer that the authorities were unable
to find an indendent panel of experts to endorse the policy that
they want to endorse.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

[CBI]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...
>
> > 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.

I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't have to file one of those forms (or
very few). My medical assistant and secretary would have to file them
because of some of the mutual funds in their retirement plans. I dare say
that you will have great difficulty finding anyone at that level of
education and affluence who would not have to file.


> > 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.

Yes, but how many of them would be qualified to comment of vaccines? Find me
a single physician who has been in practice (or doing research) for 15-20
years and doesn't own stock or funds.

--
CBI, MD

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Beth wrote:

> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
>> In >, Beth wrote:
>>
>> > Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>> >> (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.

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.

>> 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.

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

> 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.

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

--
| 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]

In >, Beth wrote:

> (Beth) wrote in message >...
>> Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>> > (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?!!!
>

> Just as an aside - is this really true? It's a statement of the sort I
> tend to believe because it can be verified and if it wasn't true, I
> would expect to see someone posting evidence to disprove it. So far I
> haven't seen anyone dispute this as being fact; in fact, I'm the first
> one to even question it. If it's not true, I'd sure like to know. It
> would reduce the credibility of the original source far more than any
> of the disparagements presented so far - i.e. small, fringe,
> anyone-can-join, etc. As it is, I'm assuming it's true and if true, I
> find it alarming.

Have you even checked to see if each member is /required/ to
file the forms, even if they basically say "I've been a
cloistered monk for the last 20 years doing research under
direct sponsorship of the Church?"

A lot of public positions require the filing of those papers
regardless. I would _not_ be surprised to see Roger and such
making a big deal of the fact that the members file forms
while glossing over the fact that filing the forms just means
that they're members.

--
| 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]

"CBI" > wrote in message >...
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
>
> > If I were sitting on some gubmnt policymaking committee,
> > and companies were paying me money while I was making
> > decisions that benefit those companies, then I'd have a conflict.
> > As it is, I have no conflicts, but I am happy to disclose the
> > above info anyone. It is all on the net.
>
> 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. 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. 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.

Beth

[Beth]

"CBI" > wrote in message >...
> "Beth" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't have to file one of those forms (or
> very few). My medical assistant and secretary would have to file them
> because of some of the mutual funds in their retirement plans. I dare say
> that you will have great difficulty finding anyone at that level of
> education and affluence who would not have to file.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, but how many of them would be qualified to comment of vaccines? Find me
> a single physician who has been in practice (or doing research) for 15-20
> years and doesn't own stock or funds.

If stocks or funds are the only problem, that easily dealt with by
selling them off and investing money elsewhere. The impression I get
is that that isn't the case.

Beth

[Beth]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> In >, Beth wrote:
>
> > (Beth) wrote in message >...
> >> Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> >> > (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?!!!
> >
>
> > Just as an aside - is this really true? It's a statement of the sort I
> > tend to believe because it can be verified and if it wasn't true, I
> > would expect to see someone posting evidence to disprove it. So far I
> > haven't seen anyone dispute this as being fact; in fact, I'm the first
> > one to even question it. If it's not true, I'd sure like to know. It
> > would reduce the credibility of the original source far more than any
> > of the disparagements presented so far - i.e. small, fringe,
> > anyone-can-join, etc. As it is, I'm assuming it's true and if true, I
> > find it alarming.
>
> Have you even checked to see if each member is /required/ to
> file the forms, even if they basically say "I've been a
> cloistered monk for the last 20 years doing research under
> direct sponsorship of the Church?"
>
> A lot of public positions require the filing of those papers
> regardless. I would _not_ be surprised to see Roger and such
> making a big deal of the fact that the members file forms
> while glossing over the fact that filing the forms just means
> that they're members.

Having had to file conflict of interest statements myself in the past,
I have some familiarity with when its required. It's only people who
actually have a potential conflict of interest that need to file such
disclosure forms.

That said, it doesn't necessarily impinge on their ability to do the
job. However, the secrecy being maintained is certainly troublesome.
Such forms are typically available, under the freedom of information
act, to any interested citizen. Thus, anyone who chooses can
investigate and judge for themselves the extent of the conflict and
how much it might influence decision making. That their
administration has choosen not to release that information to the
public is every bit as troublesome as the fact that every member has
filed such a statement.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:

>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>> (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

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote:

>In >, 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?!!! That's not good.

>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.

Even then, you have to fill out and sign the form - you just put
"none" in the blanks for 401K, pension, stocks and bank accounts.


Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(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

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(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

[Beth]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> In >, Beth wrote:
>
> > "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> >> In >, Beth wrote:
> >>
> >> > Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> >> >> (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

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> (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

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, 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

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "D. C. Sessions" > 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?!!! That's not good.
>> Why not?
>
> For one thing, it undermines the credibility of the committees.
> The FDA and CDC have these committees so they can say that
> their policies are endorsed by an independent panel of experts.
> But when it turns out that the panel is really just a bunch of
> vaccine industry stooges, then it makes me less likely to follow
> the conclusions, because I infer that the authorities were unable
> to find an indendent panel of experts to endorse the policy that
> they want to endorse.

I take it then that you apply the same yardstick to any other
Government official who has to fill out a conflict-of-interest
form? That any body whose members ALL have to fill out such
forms has lost credibility?

Or is this another case of Schlafly special pleading?

--
| 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]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (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

[Beth]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (Beth) wrote:
>
> >Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> >> (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

[JG]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote in message
...

[...]

> >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.

The name of the committee in question--the CDC's Advisory Committee on
Immunization PRACTICES (ACIP)--says it all. It's a committee that
recommends POLICY. The "technical merits" of vaccines under
consideration have already been dealt with by another HHS agency, the
FDA.

The ACIP should NOT have "vaccine researchers" as members. (If
committee members desired, for some reason, researchers' input, they
could certainly be called upon as consultants.) The ACIP should contain
epidemiologists, statisticians, and economists (i.e., persons qualified
to assess the *necessity*--as opposed to the safety and efficacy--of a
given vaccine, as well as its probable costs and benefits [the
already-assessed safety and efficacy would be factors in this latter
analysis]), as well as members of the "public at large"; to ensure
integrity, it would be appropriate to have members of groups critical of
routine, mass, mandated vaccination (e.g., the NVIC and AAPS, as Roger
has suggested) included. (Sure, they'd likely be lobbied by vaccine
manufacturers, but they would also be accountable to the organization
that selected/nominated them. They'd also, no doubt, ask the toughest
questions.)

[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.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Beth" > 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.

[Rich Shewmaker]

--

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Beth" > 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

[David Wright]

In article >,
CBI > wrote:
>
>
>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>>
>> 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)

[David Wright]

In article >,
Jeff Utz > wrote:
>
>"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
>> "David Wright" > 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)

[Beth]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (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

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
.. .

> In article >,
> Jeff Utz > wrote:

> >"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> "David Wright" > 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.)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > 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>

[Beth]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Tsu Dho Nimh" > 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

[Roger Schlafly]

"Beth" > 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!

[Beth]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "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?
>
> 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

[Beth]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "D. C. Sessions" > 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?!!! That's not good.
> > Why not?
>
> For one thing, it undermines the credibility of the committees.
> The FDA and CDC have these committees so they can say that
> their policies are endorsed by an independent panel of experts.
> But when it turns out that the panel is really just a bunch of
> vaccine industry stooges, then it makes me less likely to follow
> the conclusions, because I infer that the authorities were unable
> to find an indendent panel of experts to endorse the policy that
> they want to endorse.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "stooges", but it certainly
reduces the credibility of their decisions and recommendations. The
panel of experts can hardly be considered *independent* when every
single one of them is operating under a waiver of the conflict of
interest rules.

Beth

Beth

>
> Vaccine Policy FAQ
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > wrote
> The name of the committee in question--the CDC's Advisory Committee on
> Immunization PRACTICES (ACIP)--says it all. It's a committee that
> recommends POLICY. The "technical merits" of vaccines under
> consideration have already been dealt with by another HHS agency, the
> FDA.

That's right. A policy decision might involve a technical risk
analysis, but the ACIP doesn't even have any members who are
competent to do that.

> The ACIP should NOT have "vaccine researchers" as members. (If
> committee members desired, for some reason, researchers' input, they
> could certainly be called upon as consultants.) The ACIP should contain
> epidemiologists, statisticians, and economists (i.e., persons qualified
> to assess the *necessity*--as opposed to the safety and efficacy--of a
> given vaccine, as well as its probable costs and benefits [the
> already-assessed safety and efficacy would be factors in this latter
> analysis]), as well as members of the "public at large"; to ensure
> integrity, it would be appropriate to have members of groups critical of
> routine, mass, mandated vaccination (e.g., the NVIC and AAPS, as Roger
> has suggested) included. (Sure, they'd likely be lobbied by vaccine
> manufacturers, but they would also be accountable to the organization
> that selected/nominated them. They'd also, no doubt, ask the toughest
> questions.)

Well said.

> [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.

I agree.

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, 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

[CBI]

"Beth" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > 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

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Beth" > 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.

Cite?


> Some of the committee
> members are getting 6-figure cash payments directly from
> the vaccine makers.



She is saying that the problem is that they have all filled out conflict of
interest forms. I'm sure that for some of them the issues is that they have
direct industry ties. This is not surprising since ,as has been pointed out,
the vaccine manufacturers and advisory commintees are going to tend to pull
fromt he same relatively snmall groups of experts. Howver, the presence of a
few of these is not what Beth is decrying. She is specifically wondered why
they all have filled out these forms. Do you know that they all are
recieving these large sums of money? Do you knwo that they all have
conflicts - or did they just have to fill out the forms regardless?

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > 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>

It certainly is evidence of something.

--
CBI, MD

[CBI]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If stocks or funds are the only problem, that easily dealt with by
> selling them off and investing money elsewhere. The impression I get
> is that that isn't the case.

Get back to me when you know exactly what it is you are complaining about.

--
CBI, MD

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > 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>

Please, no self-contradictory statements. Things are confusing enough
as it is.

-- 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]

In article >,
D. C. Sessions > wrote:
>In >, 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.

Roger is not responsible for his parentage and dragging it into the
discussion is dirty pool.

-- 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]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"JG" > wrote

>> [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.
>
>I agree.

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.

Chicken pox is generally benign, but not always. The financial
costs of the vaccine are known. What are the complication rates
vs the disease itself? (Even chicken pox can, on occasion, be
fatal.)

-- 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)

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > Actually, the AAP just rubberstamps the CDC/ACIP schedule.
> > It is in the best interest of the kids and their parents to have one
clear
> > schedule, rather than competing schedules from the AAFP, AAP and ACIP.
>
> It may be in the interests of parents and kids if the AAP stops
> issuing recommendations altogether.

How do you figure? Whom do you expect to advise parents about vaccinations?

> > I see you have the moves down pat. In one place you say
> > they don't have to place a lot of ads, then you say they place ads to
pay
> > off the AAP, but you never answered the question why they place ads in
> other
> > journals.
>
> You and Mark were confused about how the drug companies can
> make so much money on vaccines without advertizing very much.
> I explained it to you -- with the gubmnt mandates, the consumers
> do not have much choice.

Yet you fail to explain why the drug makers advertise mandatory vaccines in
various journals, including journals not affiliated with physicians groups.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
...
> In >, CBI wrote:
>
> > "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> > et...
> >
> >> If I were sitting on some gubmnt policymaking committee,
> >> and companies were paying me money while I was making
> >> decisions that benefit those companies, then I'd have a conflict.
> >> As it is, I have no conflicts, but I am happy to disclose the
> >> above info anyone. It is all on the net.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Please note that the only people who *don't* have such
> securities in their portfolios are counting on Social
> Security for retirement income -- not, dare I say it,
> a mark of intelligence.

Often, sadly, because they don't understand the importance of saving for
retirement or because they don't have the funds to save for retirement. I
know several people who worked under the table to support their families. So
they don't even get Soc. Sec. because they did not put the money in.

Jeff
> --
> | 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

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
> >"JG" > wrote

> >> [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.

> >I agree.

> 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.

"Unknown origin" perhaps, but not unknown mode of transmission:
contaminated (with hep B) body fluids. If a kid lives in a rather
unhygienic household where a hep B+ person also resides (whether his/her
hep B status is known or not), gets tattooed or pierced in a
less-than-sanitary parlor, shoots up with needles used by others, and
engages in "risky" sex with persons whose hep B status is unknown, and
is then discovered to have hep B, yeah, his/her source of infection
might well be classified as "unknown."

> Chicken pox is generally benign, but not always. The financial
> costs of the vaccine are known. What are the complication rates
> vs the disease itself? (Even chicken pox can, on occasion, be
> fatal.)

The *exact* costs of vaccinating virtually all US kids against
chickenpox, including the cost of dealing with adverse reactions to the
vaccine, like the *exact* costs of dealing with the disease itself,
aren't known , but according to an article in MMWR Vol.45, No. RR-11
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042990.htm), the "direct
costs" (i.e., hospitalization and medical consultation/treatment) of
chickenpox *don't* justify universal immunization (benefit-cost
ratio=0.90:1). In order to rationalize (economically speaking) routine,
mass vaccination, the gubmnt (for the first time, to my knowledge) added
indirect costs--what officials called "work-loss" costs--into the
equation. (I don't imagine they included the indirect "work-loss" cost
incurred by parents in taking their kids to be vaccinated in the "cost
of vaccination," however. <g>)

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > 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.
> "Unknown origin" perhaps, but not unknown mode of transmission:
> contaminated (with hep B) body fluids. ...

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
not disclosed to those doing the study. (Eg, someone might be
embarrassed about homosexual contacts.)

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > It may be in the interests of parents and kids if the AAP stops
> > issuing recommendations altogether.
> How do you figure? Whom do you expect to advise parents about
vaccinations?

And who is going to advise them about the Teletubbies?

> Yet you fail to explain why the drug makers advertise mandatory vaccines
in
> various journals, including journals not affiliated with physicians
groups.

Does this relate to anything I said? I assume that they advertize according
to their business interests. But go ahead and make your point, and post
your theory.

[David Wright]

In article >,
JG > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>> >"JG" > wrote
>
>> >> [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.
>
>> >I agree.
>
>> 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.
>
>"Unknown origin" perhaps, but not unknown mode of transmission:
>contaminated (with hep B) body fluids. If a kid lives in a rather
>unhygienic household where a hep B+ person also resides (whether his/her
>hep B status is known or not), gets tattooed or pierced in a
>less-than-sanitary parlor, shoots up with needles used by others, and
>engages in "risky" sex with persons whose hep B status is unknown, and
>is then discovered to have hep B, yeah, his/her source of infection
>might well be classified as "unknown."

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.

>> Chicken pox is generally benign, but not always. The financial
>> costs of the vaccine are known. What are the complication rates
>> vs the disease itself? (Even chicken pox can, on occasion, be
>> fatal.)
>
>The *exact* costs of vaccinating virtually all US kids against
>chickenpox, including the cost of dealing with adverse reactions to the
>vaccine, like the *exact* costs of dealing with the disease itself,
>aren't known , but according to an article in MMWR Vol.45, No. RR-11
>(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042990.htm), the "direct
>costs" (i.e., hospitalization and medical consultation/treatment) of
>chickenpox *don't* justify universal immunization (benefit-cost
>ratio=0.90:1). In order to rationalize (economically speaking) routine,
>mass vaccination, the gubmnt (for the first time, to my knowledge) added
>indirect costs--what officials called "work-loss" costs--into the
>equation. (I don't imagine they included the indirect "work-loss" cost
>incurred by parents in taking their kids to be vaccinated in the "cost
>of vaccination," however. <g>)

Hardly reasonable, since the kids would not be making a special trip
for chickenpox vaccination. OK, perhaps you do have to use indirect
costs for that equation, but those *are* real costs, nevertheless, are
they not?

-- 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]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"JG" > 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.
>> "Unknown origin" perhaps, but not unknown mode of transmission:
>> contaminated (with hep B) body fluids. ...
>
>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
>not disclosed to those doing the study. (Eg, someone might be
>embarrassed about homosexual contacts.)

And you know this how?

-- 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > 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"?

[Nana Weedkiller]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > > It may be in the interests of parents and kids if the AAP stops
> > > issuing recommendations altogether.
> > How do you figure? Whom do you expect to advise parents about
> vaccinations?
>
> And who is going to advise them about the Teletubbies?
>

I think Jerry Falwell has cornered that market.

[Nana Weedkiller]

"JG" > wrote in message
t...
[...]
>
> The ACIP should NOT have "vaccine researchers" as members. (If
> committee members desired, for some reason, researchers' input, they
> could certainly be called upon as consultants.) The ACIP should contain
> epidemiologists, statisticians, and economists (i.e., persons qualified
> to assess the *necessity*--as opposed to the safety and efficacy--of a
> given vaccine, as well as its probable costs and benefits [the
> already-assessed safety and efficacy would be factors in this latter
> analysis]), as well as members of the "public at large"; to ensure
> integrity, it would be appropriate to have members of groups critical of
> routine, mass, mandated vaccination (e.g., the NVIC and AAPS, as Roger
> has suggested) included. (Sure, they'd likely be lobbied by vaccine
> manufacturers, but they would also be accountable to the organization
> that selected/nominated them. They'd also, no doubt, ask the toughest
> questions.)

Hey, I can ask some really really tough questions...especially with the
expectation of a 6 figure payoff check from vaccine makers, NVIC and AAPS.

Oh, but wait...will we have to fill out those dang gubmunt conflict of
interest forms?
<sigh>

[Nana Weedkiller]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "JG" > 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.
> > "Unknown origin" perhaps, but not unknown mode of transmission:
> > contaminated (with hep B) body fluids. ...
>
> 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
> not disclosed to those doing the study. (Eg, someone might be
> embarrassed about homosexual contacts.)

Or they might be embarrassed about heterosexual contacts.

Maybe with their pastor.

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, 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.

--
| 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

[JG]

"Nana Weedkiller" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> t...
> [...]

> > The ACIP should NOT have "vaccine researchers" as members. (If
> > committee members desired, for some reason, researchers' input, they
> > could certainly be called upon as consultants.) The ACIP should
contain
> > epidemiologists, statisticians, and economists (i.e., persons
qualified
> > to assess the *necessity*--as opposed to the safety and efficacy--of
a
> > given vaccine, as well as its probable costs and benefits [the
> > already-assessed safety and efficacy would be factors in this latter
> > analysis]), as well as members of the "public at large"; to ensure
> > integrity, it would be appropriate to have members of groups
critical of
> > routine, mass, mandated vaccination (e.g., the NVIC and AAPS, as
Roger
> > has suggested) included. (Sure, they'd likely be lobbied by vaccine
> > manufacturers, but they would also be accountable to the
organization
> > that selected/nominated them. They'd also, no doubt, ask the
toughest
> > questions.)

> Hey, I can ask some really really tough questions...especially with
the
> expectation of a 6 figure payoff check from vaccine makers, NVIC and
AAPS.

Okay, it's late, but I've read the above comment half a dozen times and
still can't figure out what point you're trying to make. The NVIC and
AAPS, both nonprofit organizations, wouldn't gain anything from having a
vaccine being considered/scrutinized for inclusion on the "recommended
for all kids" list given a "thumbs down."

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:


>> >Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message
>> 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.

Have you ever been on the advisory committee to a FEDERAL agency?

>> 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?

Possibly because of federal privacy laws?


>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.

What are the backgrounds of the members of this committee? And
why is it not diverse enough for you.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote:

>In >, 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 :-)

Damn ... I guess I cna't run for president, because unlike Bill,
I inhaled.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:

>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message
>> 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.

Wrong. At this level of committee, even candidates have to fill
out financial disclosure forms.

What is a Special Government Employee?
A person who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to
perform, with or without compensation, for a period not to exceed
130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, temporary
duties for the Federal Government either on a full-time or
intermittent basis.

18 U.S.C. 208: “An employee is prohibited from participating
personally and substantially in an official capacity in any
particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he or any person
whose interests are imputed to him under this statute has a
financial interest, if the particular matter will have a direct
and predictable effect on that interest.”
Participate - “decision, approval, recommendation, or rendering
advice.”
Personally - “directly and includes participation of a
subordinate when directed”
Substantially - “of significance to the matter”
Particular Matter - “one focused on the interests of specific
persons or class”
Financial interests - “stocks, bonds, partnership interest,
options”
Imputed to the employee - “self, spouse, dependent children”
Direct and predictable effect - “close causal link to the
interest, a real effect”

5 C.F.R. 2635.502: Appearance of lack of impartiality: “Where an
employee knows that a particular matter involving specific
parties is likely to have a direct and predictable effect
on the financial interest of a member of his household, or knows
that a person with whom he has a covered relationship is or
represents a party to such matter, and where the person
determines that the circumstances would cause a reasonable person
with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his impartiality
in the matter, the employee should not participate
in the matter unless he has informed the agency designee of the
appearance of a problem and received authorization from the
agency designee".

B. Who Must File
Special Government Employees (SGEs) providing advice to EPA must
file this form as well as candidates who wish to be considered
for such service. (similar wording appears on the NSF and USPTO
forms)

C. Confidentiality of Information Provided on this Form
Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.),
Executive Order 12674, and 5 CFR Part 2634, Subpart I, of the
Officeof Government Ethics regulations require the reporting of
this information. The primary use of the information on this form
is for review by Government officials at EPA to determine
compliance with applicable Federal conflict of interest laws and
regulations. Additional disclosures of the information on this
report may be made: (1) to a Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency if the disclosing agency becomes aware of a
violation or potential violation of law or regulation; (2) to a
court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if
the Government is a party or in order to comply with a
judge-issued subpoena; (3) to a source when necessary to obtain
information relevant to a conflict of interest investigation or
decision; (4) to the National Archives and Records Administration
or the General Services Administration in records management
inspections; (5) to the Office of Management and Budget during
legislative coordination on private relief legislation; and (6)
in response to a request for discovery or for the appearance of a
witness in a judicial or administrative proceeding, if the
information is relevant to the subject matter. This confidential
report will not be disclosed to any requesting person unless
authorized by law.




>> 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

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) 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.

What was the wording on the "waivers"? Just what was being
"waived"?

Maybe they signed a waiver making them serve "at will" instead of
with the usual proteciton of employment that SES have. Maybe the
signed a waiver of health care coverage.



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:

>According to a report published by the government on this concern:
>
>"CDC Advisory Committee members who are not allowed to vote on certain
>recommendations due to financial conflicts of interest are allowed to
>participate in committee deliberations and advocate specific
>positions."

>No, I'm afraid that it hardly alleviates my concerns in that regard.

Beth -
Everybody on the committee knows everyone else and knows who
they work for.

If the guy who consults for Merck gets up on his soapbox in a
working committee meeting and starts spouting the sales
department's line instead of considering the epidemiological
merits of the vaccine, he'll get laughed out of the room and some
people might even flip spitwads at him as he leaves.



Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[abacus]

"JG" > wrote in message >...

>
> [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

[abacus]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> In >, 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.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(Beth) wrote:


>The
>panel of experts can hardly be considered *independent* when every
>single one of them is operating under a waiver of the conflict of
>interest rules.

Just WHAT is being waived? Have you seen the waivers?

Perhaps they are waiving their rights to unemployment
cometnsaiton, a govrenment pension or something else.

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]

In >, 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

[JG]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...

> "JG" > wrote in message
>...

> > [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! :o) 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

[JG]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote in message
...
> (Beth) wrote:

> >The
> >panel of experts can hardly be considered *independent* when every
> >single one of them is operating under a waiver of the conflict of
> >interest rules.

> Just WHAT is being waived? Have you seen the waivers?

The CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES are being waived BY THE GUBMNT.

> Perhaps they are waiving their rights to unemployment
> cometnsaiton, a govrenment pension or something else.

(1) It's the *gubmnt* doing the waiving of rules, NOT the members of
the ACIP.
(2) ACIP members, with the exception of (supposedly) non-voting ex
officio members, are NOT gubmnt *employees*--not even "special
Government employees"--ergo, unemployment compensation and government
pensions are irrelevant.

[Roger Schlafly]

"abacus" > 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.

[JG]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...

[...]

> 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!

[Roger Schlafly]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote
> also complain that the CDC, right up to the Director, are in
> the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. In fact, it

Lemme get this straight. The CDC appoints corrupt
members to the ACIP committee. You would like to see
the practice continued, because some people say that there
are other corrupt people in the CDC also!

[Beth]

"JG" > wrote in message >...

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

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > 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.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote:

>"abacus" > 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

[Mightyoledragon]

Your Help is Desperatly Needed to Stop Lead Poisoning in Children!
Hello MY Name is Shelly,
I'm writing this message in the hope of getting signatures/names for my crusade
against Lead Poisoning in Children. My 4 Children ( Brandon 5, Marissah 4,
Thomas 22 mos., and Jacob 6 mos.) were tested positive for lead poisoning! upon
testing of my appartment, we found that there were high levels of Lead!....
Each night as i layed my children down to sleep in their beds,i would watch
them kneel at the side of their beds to say their prayers,I would kiss them
goodnightand tuck them saftly into their beds so i thought.
Little did i Know that their rooms were where i left them each night to sleep
was loaded with lead! The one place i thought they were safe and sound,
Poisoned them!
My babies, My Sweet, innocent babies...I called everywhere i could think to
solve this matter, i even called my local Health Department. They informed me
that unless my childrens lead levels reach the dangerous level of 20 or above
they could not help me! i was so upset, i felt that no one cared about the
safty of my children but myself!
SO I made a vow to my children that i would fight the lagal system to have the
lead levels reduced.... Knowing that if i waited till their lead levels reached
20 they would already be suffering for the lead nad could experience learning
disabilities, Brain Damage and even Death in some cases!
I need to help my children and other Children!
and your help can put us one step closer to doing this!
below in an email address you can respond to, simply drop me a quick email and
tell me to put your name on the list!
Please also provide your email, the city and State you live in.
by signing this petition we can get these lead levels lowered! PLEASE WE REALLY
NEED YOUR HELP!
Signed,
Shelly In New York

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"abacus" > 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.

[JG]

"Beth" > wrote in message
om...

> "JG" > wrote in message
>...

> 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 ) is legit. :o)

> > 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 :o)>

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)_

[JG]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > 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.

[JG]

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote:

> >"abacus" > 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!

[JG]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
y.com...

> In article >,
> Roger Schlafly > 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. Even though most people don't
> have Hep B, and never will, that 30% figure is pretty disturbing.

Numerous Web sites (I did a Google search using "hepatitis B, cases,
unknown source") state that 1/3 of the hep B cases (whether in kids,
adults, or in toto wasn't ever specified) occur in individuals with "no
known risk factors," yet the only attribution I saw for this figure was
"according to the CDC." (The thought has crossed my mind that there's
some sort of brainwashing or massive groupthink programming going on
when it comes to the CDC; it's unusual, for example, to hear a public
health official talk about the ongoing need to vaccinate kids without
uttering the phrase, "These diseases are just a plane ride away." Talk
about trite!) At any rate, I'd really like to think the CDC doesn't
pull figures out of thin air, so presumably it (*someone* there) got
that figure from some survey (health department officials' reports of
cases in their respective states?) or study. *That* is the source in
which I'm interested.

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

Not a valid conclusion. All it indicates--assuming the figure's
accurate--is that "several percent" of THOSE WHO HAVE HEP B contracted
it from an unknown (unidentified) person; it doesn't say anything about
how many (what percent of) the US population has hep B.

[Roger Schlafly]

"JG" > wrote
> > 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.
> Numerous Web sites (I did a Google search using "hepatitis B, cases,
> unknown source") state that 1/3 of the hep B cases (whether in kids,
> adults, or in toto wasn't ever specified) occur in individuals with "no
> known risk factors," yet the only attribution I saw for this figure was
> "according to the CDC." (The thought has crossed my mind that there's
> some sort of brainwashing or massive groupthink programming going on

I don't doubt that somebody somewhere did a survey, and asked
a question like:

Q. Do you have the following risk factor?
[ ] promiscuous unprotected sexual activity
[ ] homosexual practicing sodomy
[ ] IV drug abuser
[ ] illegal alien living in filthy household
[ ] decline to state

Then 1/3 of the respondents said "decline to state".

> > That equates to several percent of the US population having Hep B
> > infections and we have no idea how they got them.
> Not a valid conclusion. All it indicates--assuming the figure's
> accurate--is that "several percent" of THOSE WHO HAVE HEP B contracted
> it from an unknown (unidentified) person; it doesn't say anything about
> how many (what percent of) the US population has hep B.

The people with HBV may very well know how they got it. The info
just doesn't happen to be available to David, or whatever his uncited
sources are.

[JG]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
. ..

> "JG" > wrote

> > Numerous Web sites (I did a Google search using "hepatitis B, cases,
> > unknown source") state that 1/3 of the hep B cases (whether in kids,
> > adults, or in toto wasn't ever specified) occur in individuals with
"no
> > known risk factors," yet the only attribution I saw for this figure
was
> > "according to the CDC." (The thought has crossed my mind that
there's
> > some sort of brainwashing or massive groupthink programming going on

> I don't doubt that somebody somewhere did a survey, and asked
> a question like:

> Q. Do you have the following risk factor?
> [ ] promiscuous unprotected sexual activity
> [ ] homosexual practicing sodomy
> [ ] IV drug abuser
> [ ] illegal alien living in filthy household
> [ ] decline to state

> Then 1/3 of the respondents said "decline to state".

Quite plausible.

> > > That equates to several percent of the US population having Hep B
> > > infections and we have no idea how they got them.
> > Not a valid conclusion. All it indicates--assuming the figure's
> > accurate--is that "several percent" of THOSE WHO HAVE HEP B
contracted
> > it from an unknown (unidentified) person; it doesn't say anything
about
> > how many (what percent of) the US population has hep B.

> The people with HBV may very well know how they got it.

I'm sure virtually all of them do (especially after being informed of
the risk factors). It could well be that a hepB+ promiscuous individual
who lives alone, isn't an immigrant, and doesn't shoot up surmises that
he/she acquired it via unprotected sex, but doesn't have any idea which
of his/her many partners was the source of his/her infection. When
asked if he/she has any idea from whom he/she might have contracted the
disease, the truthful response would be "No." Tada!-->another "unknown
source" case.

The info
> just doesn't happen to be available to David, or whatever his uncited
> sources are.

....but does he--or do most US citizens--see a problem with this? I
doubt it. It's the CDC, after all. <g>

[Mark Probert]

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "abacus" > 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.


Sounds like a good idea to me. Makes sure the kid is protected.

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>> >"David Wright" > 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.
>
>Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
>being non-existant.

I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?

>If no members of the household have hep B nor are engaging in high
>risk behaviors, then the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is
>greater than the risk of contracting Hep B and vaccination isn't
>warrented.

While the child is still living in the home -- assuming they never
leave the house, I suppose.

But what risks are we talking about? I went onto PubMed today to try
to find out how risky vaccination for hep B is to children, and the
result I came up with was "we don't seem to be able to find any risk."
This may not be true of vaccinating adults, however.

>I understand the logic behind the policy of recommending the vaccine
>for every child: "We should vaccinate everyone because we can't identy
>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.

Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how you can either.

-- 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]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"abacus" > 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.

You established long ago that your position on vaccination is "let
everyone else vaccinate their kids so mine can get a free ride."

Trouble is, you can't get herd immunity if everyone tries this.

-- 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)

[Roger Schlafly]

"David Wright" > wrote
> Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
> (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
> infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
> B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
> vaccination is way, way below 6%.

Can you cite your source? What assumptions went into those figures?

[tools]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
. net...
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> > "abacus" > 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.
>
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me.
Sounds like BS to me.
Makes sure the kid is protected.

Like condoms?
>
>

[Jeff Utz]

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "David Wright" > wrote
> > But what risks are we talking about? I went onto PubMed today to try
> > to find out how risky vaccination for hep B is to children, and the
> > result I came up with was "we don't seem to be able to find any risk."
>
> Funny, isn't it? The authorities say common aspirin is risky, but
> HBV vaccine has zero risk. None. Nada. Then, after saying
> the risk is zero for years, they suddenly suspended the whole
> program because the vaccine had dangerously high levels of
> mercury, and might be causing autism.

I have never heard the government say that vaccination might be causing
autism. And they did not suspend the program. They recommended that children
be vaccinated with mercury-free vaccine or wait until they are a little
bigger.

> After a year or so, they
> put the vaccine back on the schedule for all newborn babies.
> All of sudden, the risk is zero again. You believe that? I don't.

Now they use mercury free vaccines in newborns. It was not the vaccine
itself that they had any concerns about, just the mercury. And I don't
recall the government or any one say the risk is zero. Ever. The vaccine is
very safe. But it still has risk.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
(...)

>
> Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
> (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
> infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
> B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
> vaccination is way, way below 6%.

Which is worse? I pain in the arm or other adverse reaction or liver
failure? The risk of serious life-threatening reactions to the hep B vaccine
is way small. The risk of liver cancer or failure from hep B infection is
far higher.

Jeff

>
> -- 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)
>
>
>

[Mark Probert]

tools wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Roger Schlafly wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"abacus" > 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.
>
>>
>>Sounds like a good idea to me.
>
> Sounds like BS to me.

Everything that is a sound, well supported idea sounds like that to you.

> Makes sure the kid is protected.
>
> Like condoms?

Get your "mind" out of the gutter.

[tools]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
. net...
> tools wrote:
> > "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >
> >>Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"abacus" > 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.
> >
> >>
> >>Sounds like a good idea to me.
> >
> > Sounds like BS to me.
>
> Everything that is a sound,
Um, you may not have noticed, but the "soundness" of the vac program is
still being debated.
>well supported idea

By some.
sounds like that to you.
>
> > Makes sure the kid is protected.
> >
> > Like condoms?
>
> Get your "mind" out of the gutter.
>
>
You are right about my last comment.

[abacus]

(David Wright) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> abacus > wrote:
> (David Wright) wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,

> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
> >being non-existant.
>
> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?

Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
child's parents can.

> >If no members of the household have hep B nor are engaging in high
> >risk behaviors, then the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is
> >greater than the risk of contracting Hep B and vaccination isn't
> >warrented.
>
> While the child is still living in the home -- assuming they never
> leave the house, I suppose.
>
> But what risks are we talking about? I went onto PubMed today to try
> to find out how risky vaccination for hep B is to children, and the
> result I came up with was "we don't seem to be able to find any risk."
> This may not be true of vaccinating adults, however.

I don't believe the risk is zero. I think the risk is quite low, but
it's not zero. Unfortunately, between the bias towards vaccination
from the CDC and the bias against vaccination by other groups, I don't
think it's possible to accurately determine the true risk.

> >I understand the logic behind the policy of recommending the vaccine
> >for every child: "We should vaccinate everyone because we can't identy
> >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.
>
> Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how you can either.

No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
my kids.

[Roger Schlafly]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote
> > Funny, isn't it? The authorities say common aspirin is risky, but
> > HBV vaccine has zero risk. None. Nada. Then, after saying
> > the risk is zero for years, they suddenly suspended the whole
> > program because the vaccine had dangerously high levels of
> > mercury, and might be causing autism.
> I have never heard the government say that vaccination might be causing
> autism. And they did not suspend the program. They recommended that
children
> be vaccinated with mercury-free vaccine or wait until they are a little
> bigger.

The gubmnt was recommending HBV vaccine for all newborns.
It dropped that recommendation. Maybe the gubmnt did not say
"autism", but the worry about mercury is that is causes neurological
problems.

[abacus]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message >...
> "David Wright" > wrote in message
> ...
> (...)
>
> >
> > Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
> > (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
> > infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
> > B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
> > vaccination is way, way below 6%.
>
> Which is worse? I pain in the arm or other adverse reaction or liver
> failure? The risk of serious life-threatening reactions to the hep B vaccine
> is way small. The risk of liver cancer or failure from hep B infection is
> far higher.

The adverse reactions reported include death, as well as severe immune
system disorders. Unfortunately, not all such reports are
investigated and make their way into the CDC statistics. Whatever the
true risk of the vaccine is, it is unknown.

On the other hand, the risk of liver failure or death due to Hep B is
quite low because the risk of infection in the absence of any known
risk factors is extremely low. Which is actually lower? No one can
say with certainty, but one can choose whether one prefers the known
or unknown risks. Why should I follow the recommendations of a
committee with a known bias towards vaccinations rather than my own
best judgement?

[David Wright]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote
>> Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
>> (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
>> infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
>> B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
>> vaccination is way, way below 6%.
>
>Can you cite your source? What assumptions went into those figures?

Always happy to help the illiterate -- as I said in my earlier
posting, I got it from a document I downloaded from CDC, and although
it has some references in it, I don't know which (if any) of them were
the source of the figures.

-- 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]

In article >,
Roger Schlafly > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote
>> But what risks are we talking about? I went onto PubMed today to try
>> to find out how risky vaccination for hep B is to children, and the
>> result I came up with was "we don't seem to be able to find any risk."
>
>Funny, isn't it? The authorities say common aspirin is risky, but
>HBV vaccine has zero risk. None. Nada.

Trust you to mischaracterize the situation. In a probably futile
effort to put you back on track, here goes: I went onto PubMed and
looked for papers about adverse reactions to hep B vaccination. The
biggest studies didn't find any differences in things like rates of
hospitalizations among the vaccinated vs the non-vaccinated.

Do some people suffer adverse reactions? Almost certainly -- but it's
rare, or it would show up in these large-scale studies.

>Then, after saying
>the risk is zero for years, they suddenly suspended the whole
>program because the vaccine had dangerously high levels of
>mercury, and might be causing autism.

As Jeff Utz pointed out, that's not why they did it. They may have
done it partially over thimerosal, but that's a political decision,
allaying the fears of the mob that have been fanned by the "mercury
is always horrible" crowd.

>After a year or so, they
>put the vaccine back on the schedule for all newborn babies.
>All of sudden, the risk is zero again. You believe that? I don't.

As usual: who cares what you believe? What can you provide evidence
for?

-- 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]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> abacus > wrote:
>> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> In article >,
>
>> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
>> >being non-existant.
>>
>> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
>> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
>> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
>
>Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
>child's parents can.

Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
things right up for me.

>> >If no members of the household have hep B nor are engaging in high
>> >risk behaviors, then the risk of an adverse reaction to the vaccine is
>> >greater than the risk of contracting Hep B and vaccination isn't
>> >warrented.
>>
>> While the child is still living in the home -- assuming they never
>> leave the house, I suppose.
>>
>> But what risks are we talking about? I went onto PubMed today to try
>> to find out how risky vaccination for hep B is to children, and the
>> result I came up with was "we don't seem to be able to find any risk."
>> This may not be true of vaccinating adults, however.
>
>I don't believe the risk is zero. I think the risk is quite low, but
>it's not zero. Unfortunately, between the bias towards vaccination
>from the CDC and the bias against vaccination by other groups, I don't
>think it's possible to accurately determine the true risk.

It may not be -- I mean, short of following everyone around for years
after they're vaccinated and recording absolutely *everything* that
happens to them, there's bound to be gaps in the reporting. But there
have been some large-scale studies that looked for hep B vaccination
sequelae among children. They didn't find anything statistically
significant.

>> >I understand the logic behind the policy of recommending the vaccine
>> >for every child: "We should vaccinate everyone because we can't identy
>> >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.
>>
>> Unless you're omniscient, I don't see how you can either.
>
>No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
>children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
>living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
>behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
>my kids.

For the first few years of their lives, you probably can. But after
they go to school? Unless you're plannign on home-schooling them and
not letting them have any friends, I think you're overestimating your
control of the situation.

-- 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]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
>"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
>> "David Wright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> (...)
>>
>> >
>> > Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
>> > (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
>> > infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
>> > B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
>> > vaccination is way, way below 6%.
>>
>> Which is worse? I pain in the arm or other adverse reaction or liver
>> failure? The risk of serious life-threatening reactions to the hep B vaccine
>> is way small. The risk of liver cancer or failure from hep B infection is
>> far higher.
>
>The adverse reactions reported include death, as well as severe immune
>system disorders. Unfortunately, not all such reports are
>investigated and make their way into the CDC statistics. Whatever the
>true risk of the vaccine is, it is unknown.
>
>On the other hand, the risk of liver failure or death due to Hep B is
>quite low because the risk of infection in the absence of any known
>risk factors is extremely low.

If the CDC's figures are right, and 30% of hep B cases are in people
with no known risk factors, that doesn't qualify as "extremely low" by
any reasonable definition.

>Which is actually lower? No one can
>say with certainty, but one can choose whether one prefers the known
>or unknown risks. Why should I follow the recommendations of a
>committee with a known bias towards vaccinations rather than my own
>best judgement?

Well, what if your best judgement is lousy? Then following it would
be 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)

[Jeff Utz]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
> > "David Wright" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > (...)
> >
> > >
> > > Well, if we assume that < 20% of the US population will contract hep B
> > > (CDC's figure again) and we don't know how 30% of cases acquired their
> > > infection, then there's less than 6% of the population who'll have hep
> > > B of unknown origin -- but the risk of an adverse event to the
> > > vaccination is way, way below 6%.
> >
> > Which is worse? I pain in the arm or other adverse reaction or liver
> > failure? The risk of serious life-threatening reactions to the hep B
vaccine
> > is way small. The risk of liver cancer or failure from hep B infection
is
> > far higher.
>
> The adverse reactions reported include death, as well as severe immune
> system disorders.

Actually, they are called "adverse events," to emphasize that at the onset,
we don't know if they are related to the vaccination or not.

> Unfortunately, not all such reports are
> investigated and make their way into the CDC statistics.

Actually, at the reports do make it into the CDC statistics.

> Whatever the
> true risk of the vaccine is, it is unknown.

This is true. A lot of adverse events go unreported. However, the system
works. It gave an early warning that something might be wrong with the
rotavirus vaccine, although it turned out not to be the case.

> On the other hand, the risk of liver failure or death due to Hep B is
> quite low because the risk of infection in the absence of any known
> risk factors is extremely low. Which is actually lower? No one can
> say with certainty, but one can choose whether one prefers the known
> or unknown risks. Why should I follow the recommendations of a
> committee with a known bias towards vaccinations rather than my own
> best judgement?

Actually, there are several different committees that make that
recommendation, including ones from the American Academy of Pediatrics and
the American Academy of Family Practice.

You should always use your own best judgment, which includes, but not
limited to the advice of the experts.

Jeff

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(abacus) wrote:


>On the other hand, the risk of liver failure or death due to Hep B is
>quite low because the risk of infection in the absence of any known
>risk factors is extremely low.

Considering that one of the riks factors is unprotected sex wiht
an infected person, and considering the inabiliyt to discern the
past sexual history of anyone ... and that men lie

One of the major AIDS populations I encountered were the
middle-aged faithfully monogamous wives of men who claimed to be
faithful, but who didn't look on using prostitutes as infidelity.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

(abacus) wrote:


>No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
>children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
>living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
>behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
>my kids.

Do they ever get to visit any other houses? What about those
families and their risk factors?

How about the toddlers your kids share spit and god knows what
else as they share toys at a day care?

How about the cute guy/girl your teenager was playing
toonsil-hockey with under the bleachers? Know about their risk
factors?


Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[abacus]

(David Wright) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> abacus > wrote:
> (David Wright) wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,
> >> abacus > wrote:
> >> (David Wright) wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> >> In article >,
>
> >> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
> >> >being non-existant.
> >>
> >> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
> >> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
> >> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
> >
> >Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
> >child's parents can.
>
> Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
> things right up for me.

It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.

> >
> >No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
> >children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
> >living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
> >behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
> >my kids.
>
> For the first few years of their lives, you probably can. But after
> they go to school? Unless you're plannign on home-schooling them and
> not letting them have any friends, I think you're overestimating your
> control of the situation.


First, the recommendation is for children too young to attend school
to receive the vaccine

Second, I do homeschool my children.

But if my children attended school, I would be required to get them
vaccinated for Hep B. A mandate I disgree with because Hep B is not a
communicable disease in the same league as, say, measles or whooping
cough.

I don't understand why all children need to be vaccinated but not all
adults. Seems to me that adults have a higher risk of exposure than
children. But only adults who are classified as high risk are
recommended for the vaccine. It really seems to me evidence of the
pro-vaccination bias of the committee. If I don't need to be
vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world should my small children
need it?

[abacus]

"Jeff Utz" > wrote in message >...
>
> You should always use your own best judgment, which includes, but not
> limited to the advice of the experts.

Thank you. I do so. Your attitude is a pleasant change from the usual
tirade on this newsgroup about how a parent's best judgement cannot be
trusted.

[abacus]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (abacus) wrote:
>
>
> >No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
> >children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
> >living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
> >behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
> >my kids.
>
> Do they ever get to visit any other houses? What about those
> families and their risk factors?
>
Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
why isn't it recommended for me?

> How about the toddlers your kids share spit and god knows what
> else as they share toys at a day care?

I don't send my kids to day care, thank you.

> How about the cute guy/girl your teenager was playing
> toonsil-hockey with under the bleachers? Know about their risk
> factors?

My children are not yet at that stage of life. I'll re-evaluate when
they get there. Thanks anyway.

[Mark Probert]

tools wrote:


>>>>Sounds like a good idea to me.
>>>
>>>Sounds like BS to me.
>>
>>Everything that is a sound,
>
> Um, you may not have noticed, but the "soundness" of the vac program is
> still being debated.

Only by those who are also likely to debate the direction the sun rises,
the shape of the Earth, and the existence of sliced bread.

>
>>well supported idea
>
>
> By some.
> sounds like that to you.
>
>>>Makes sure the kid is protected.
>>>
>>>Like condoms?
>>
>>Get your "mind" out of the gutter.
>>
>>
>
> You are right about my last comment.


So, get your mind out of the gutter. Jan does not like that.

[abacus]

Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
> (abacus) wrote:
>
>
> >On the other hand, the risk of liver failure or death due to Hep B is
> >quite low because the risk of infection in the absence of any known
> >risk factors is extremely low.
>
> Considering that one of the riks factors is unprotected sex wiht
> an infected person, and considering the inabiliyt to discern the
> past sexual history of anyone ... and that men lie

My 4-year-old isn't having sex with anyone. Its part of my job as a
parent to make sure that doesn't happen at his age.

> One of the major AIDS populations I encountered were the
> middle-aged faithfully monogamous wives of men who claimed to be
> faithful, but who didn't look on using prostitutes as infidelity.

And how many people who were in monogamous relationships where both
parties actually were faithful came down with AIDS? How many wives
believed their husbands and were justified in doing so? You can't
possibly have any idea. You only see the failures. Why is it that
people who deal with the problems that arise from such situations so
often develop the cynical and incorrect belief that because some
people are mistaken in trusting their spouse, that no one should?

If you cannot comprehend family relationships based on mutual trust,
responsibility, and integrity, your opinions are more understandable.
But, believe it or not, some of us do manage to have such
relationships with our loved ones; our spouses and even our
teen-agers. I have worked hard to achieve, and had the good fortune
to succeed in having a close family. Sneer at such naivity if you
wish, condemn me for being foolish in trusting those I love. I can
live with that. I know that I am the wise and lucky one in having
such relationships, and that you are a fool if you believe that such
relationships do not exist.

[Mark Probert]

abacus wrote:

> Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>
(abacus) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
>>>children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
>>>living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
>>>behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
>>>my kids.
>>
>>Do they ever get to visit any other houses? What about those
>>families and their risk factors?
>>
>
> Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
> during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
> why isn't it recommended for me?

Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
See the difference? I doubt it.


>>How about the toddlers your kids share spit and god knows what
>>else as they share toys at a day care?

> I don't send my kids to day care, thank you.

Good thing. If you sent yours to my kids daycare, I would object.


Snip

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> abacus > wrote:
>> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> abacus > wrote:
>> >> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >> >...
>> >> >> In article >,
>>
>> >> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
>> >> >being non-existant.
>> >>
>> >> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
>> >> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
>> >> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
>> >
>> >Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
>> >child's parents can.
>>
>> Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
>> things right up for me.
>
>It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
>your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.

Does it not? I know you tried to slough off Tsu's example of women
with AIDS who were infected by their husbands, but unless you're going
to try to make the claim that they were all idiots and you're so smart
you can never be fooled (nor can anyone else who doesn't want to have
their kids vaccinated for hep B), I think you've got a tough sell
here.

>> >No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
>> >children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
>> >living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
>> >behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
>> >my kids.
>>
>> For the first few years of their lives, you probably can. But after
>> they go to school? Unless you're plannign on home-schooling them and
>> not letting them have any friends, I think you're overestimating your
>> control of the situation.
>
>First, the recommendation is for children too young to attend school
>to receive the vaccine
>
>Second, I do homeschool my children.
>
>But if my children attended school, I would be required to get them
>vaccinated for Hep B. A mandate I disgree with because Hep B is not a
>communicable disease in the same league as, say, measles or whooping
>cough.
>
>I don't understand why all children need to be vaccinated but not all
>adults. Seems to me that adults have a higher risk of exposure than
>children. But only adults who are classified as high risk are
>recommended for the vaccine. It really seems to me evidence of the
>pro-vaccination bias of the committee. If I don't need to be
>vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world should my small children
>need it?

You are not going to drag me into a discussion of legal requirements;
I am merely discussing risks.

Meanwhile, as best I can tell, you and Roger are taking the position
that the 30% of hep B positive people who have no known risk factors
are lying, and really do have risk factors that they didn't tell the
investigators about. That's your privilege, but what if there are
other vectors we don't yet know about. 30% is a pretty big
percentage. You're adamant about your kids avoiding a very tiny risk
from the vaccine, but skipping over this large unknown.

-- 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)

[Jim]

"David Wright" > wrote
> Meanwhile, as best I can tell, you and Roger are taking the position
> that the 30% of hep B positive people who have no known risk factors
> are lying, and really do have risk factors that they didn't tell the
> investigators about.

Maybe I missed it, but did you ever explain where that
30% figure came from? What is the source? Where can
I download it?

Also, I didn't see anywhere where abacus or Roger said
that anyone was lying. Someone could have a lack of
knowledge without anyone lying.

[fred & michele]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...

> And how many people who were in monogamous relationships where both
> parties actually were faithful came down with AIDS?

There is a long time period where HIV is asymptomatic -- I've had clients
who traced the source of their infection back over 10 years before the first
s/s surfaced. Ditto for Hep B.
Several of these people had married & had children since. They WERE
monogamous with their spouse -- the fateful encounter had occurred before
their marraige. If you think everybody readily admits their *complete*
history to their future spouse, guess again. This goes for any behavior
they think may cost them the love of their lives -- IV drug use,
bisexuality, visits to the local prostitute. In addition to intentionally
covering up their past, it's not as rare as you'd hope that people engaged
in risky behavior while under the influence of alcohol or drugs & really
don't remember everything they did. In addition, many people have been
sexually assaulted & may have been infected with HIV or Hep B as a result.
Do you know that many such cases are never reported & the person assaulted
never says anything to a living soul? There is no way to be 100% sure that
your SO wasn't a traumatized victim too afraid to say what happened.

>How many wives
> believed their husbands and were justified in doing so? You can't
> possibly have any idea.

Half of all marraiges end in divorce. Many of those are dissolved after
infidelity is discovered. In lots of those unions, the infidelity that
ended the relationship wasn't the first episode of such cheating. While it
doesn't mean that all spouses cheat, it shows that a lot of them do. All
sorts of people, including people nobody (including their spouses) would
suspect of being unfaithful. How many have trusted their spouses & been
shocked to find their SO engaging in behavior that puts them both at risk?
You also have to consider that many people who have never engaged in risky
behavior themselves may have left a SO who put them at risk with behavior
they are unaware occurred.
Do you believe everybody is completely honest with their husband or wife?
Many people are sure their SO is true blue & would never do anything that
could be dangerous to them. Getting a Hep B vaccine doesn't eliminate the
trust between husband & wife. any more than any other vaccine. If everything
is all sweetness & light between the couple forever, wonderful! Both
partners will be protected from other possibilities of infection of Hep B if
they are vaccinated.

>You only see the failures. Why is it that
> people who deal with the problems that arise from such situations so
> often develop the cynical and incorrect belief that because some
> people are mistaken in trusting their spouse, that no one should?

You've answered your own question. We've treated the trusting spouses
infected by a wandering mate. We've spoken to the victims of sexual
assaults who refuse to tell their loved ones for many reasons. We've seen
IV drug abusers (former & present) marry people who don't have the faintest
idea about their SO's past/present behavior. It's virtually impossible to
be 100% sure about anybody's behavior. Even good, wonderful people can make
mistakes & cover up what they do (or did in the past) to avoid the possible
consequences of losing their spouse, their kids, their standing in the
community, & everything else they hold dear. One hopes they can trust their
mate, their kids, their friends & neighbors, but if there is a simple
effective way to insure against any of the possible risks -- like Hep B --
it makes sense to utilize it.

> If you cannot comprehend family relationships based on mutual trust,
> responsibility, and integrity, your opinions are more understandable.
> But, believe it or not, some of us do manage to have such
> relationships with our loved ones; our spouses and even our
> teen-agers. I have worked hard to achieve, and had the good fortune
> to succeed in having a close family. Sneer at such naivity if you
> wish, condemn me for being foolish in trusting those I love. I can
> live with that. I know that I am the wise and lucky one in having
> such relationships, and that you are a fool if you believe that such
> relationships do not exist.

I don't condemn anyone for trusting their spouse. I console many of them
when that trust has been violated. I would never say there aren't any such
relationships, but I would challenge ANYONE to know *for sure* which
relationships are worthy of unquestioning 100% trust.

I am often privy to information (through my work) that someone hasn't shared
with their SO (or anybody else in some situations). Some of these
revelations shock the hell out of me & I'm sure they'd blow the socks off
the trusting spouse, were they to hear them. These are folks whose SO's
would swear they had nothing to worry about WRT to their spouse exposing
them to any dangers. Yet their unwavering trust doesn't change the truth.

Getting a Hep B vaccine protects one from Hep B no matter what the source of
possible infection is. Having a faithful monogamous relationship doesn't
prevent the transmission of the virus in other ways. With used syringes
found on the beaches & playgrounds, Hep B can be an accidental needle stick
away for someone playing there. Unfortunately, sexual assaults happen, &
the idea that a victim dealing with an already horrendous event should find
out they have also been infected with Hep B is a sad one indeed.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

[David Wright]

In article .net>,
Jim > wrote:
>"David Wright" > wrote
>> Meanwhile, as best I can tell, you and Roger are taking the position
>> that the 30% of hep B positive people who have no known risk factors
>> are lying, and really do have risk factors that they didn't tell the
>> investigators about.
>
>Maybe I missed it, but did you ever explain where that
>30% figure came from? What is the source? Where can
>I download it?

A fair question deserves a fair answer:

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hepb.pdf

>Also, I didn't see anywhere where abacus or Roger said
>that anyone was lying. Someone could have a lack of
>knowledge without anyone lying.

Oh, Roger's not going to come right out and say "people are lying."
He'll just imply it, which is what he did. If you go back and
look at the wording of his posts, and those of "JG" (I think it was)
also, you'll see that they are clearly implying that all those people
with no known risk factors actually *did* have risk factors and just
weren't admitting it. Classy.

-- 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)

[PF Riley]

On 16 Aug 2003 16:39:53 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

>Mark Probert > wrote in message >...
>> abacus wrote:
>>
>> > Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>> >
>> (abacus) wrote:
>> > Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
>> > during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
>> > why isn't it recommended for me?
>>
>> Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
>> See the difference? I doubt it.
>
>Uh, the conversation was about Hep B, not pertussis. See the
>difference? I doubt it.

It's called an analogy. Kids are much, much more likely to be killed
by pertussis just as they are much, much more likely to become chronic
carriers of hepatitis B if acutely infected. It is the chronic carrier
state that leads to the majority of morbidity and mortality of
hepatitis B.

PF

[abacus]

"fred & michele" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > And how many people who were in monogamous relationships where both
> > parties actually were faithful came down with AIDS?
>
> There is a long time period where HIV is asymptomatic -- I've had clients
> who traced the source of their infection back over 10 years before the first
> s/s surfaced. Ditto for Hep B.
> Several of these people had married & had children since. They WERE
> monogamous with their spouse -- the fateful encounter had occurred before
> their marraige. If you think everybody readily admits their *complete*
> history to their future spouse, guess again. This goes for any behavior
> they think may cost them the love of their lives -- IV drug use,
> bisexuality, visits to the local prostitute. In addition to intentionally
> covering up their past, it's not as rare as you'd hope that people engaged
> in risky behavior while under the influence of alcohol or drugs & really
> don't remember everything they did. In addition, many people have been
> sexually assaulted & may have been infected with HIV or Hep B as a result.
> Do you know that many such cases are never reported & the person assaulted
> never says anything to a living soul? There is no way to be 100% sure that
> your SO wasn't a traumatized victim too afraid to say what happened.

Sigh, you know, you've given a lot of rare examples, but you haven't
answered the question. Rare examples exists for both sides - like the
couple who meets when both are virgins, marry and neither ever has sex
with anyone else.

At some point, the original statement got clipped, which had to do
with whether or not it requires omniscience for someone to know if the
members of their household are engaged (note the current tense, not
past tense) in high risk behaviors. Your examples are not relevant to
that statement.

> >How many wives
> > believed their husbands and were justified in doing so? You can't
> > possibly have any idea.
>
> Half of all marraiges end in divorce. Many of those are dissolved after
> infidelity is discovered. In lots of those unions, the infidelity that
> ended the relationship wasn't the first episode of such cheating. While it
> doesn't mean that all spouses cheat, it shows that a lot of them do. All
> sorts of people, including people nobody (including their spouses) would
> suspect of being unfaithful. How many have trusted their spouses & been
> shocked to find their SO engaging in behavior that puts them both at risk?
> You also have to consider that many people who have never engaged in risky
> behavior themselves may have left a SO who put them at risk with behavior
> they are unaware occurred.

> Do you believe everybody is completely honest with their husband or wife?

No. It would be as foolish to believe that everybody is completely
honest as it is to believe that no one is.

> Many people are sure their SO is true blue & would never do anything that
> could be dangerous to them. Getting a Hep B vaccine doesn't eliminate the
> trust between husband & wife. any more than any other vaccine. If everything
> is all sweetness & light between the couple forever, wonderful! Both
> partners will be protected from other possibilities of infection of Hep B if
> they are vaccinated.

Are you recommending that everyone be vaccinated against Hep B? Not
just children?

> >You only see the failures. Why is it that
> > people who deal with the problems that arise from such situations so
> > often develop the cynical and incorrect belief that because some
> > people are mistaken in trusting their spouse, that no one should?
>
> You've answered your own question. We've treated the trusting spouses
> infected by a wandering mate. We've spoken to the victims of sexual
> assaults who refuse to tell their loved ones for many reasons. We've seen
> IV drug abusers (former & present) marry people who don't have the faintest
> idea about their SO's past/present behavior. It's virtually impossible to
> be 100% sure about anybody's behavior. Even good, wonderful people can make
> mistakes & cover up what they do (or did in the past) to avoid the possible
> consequences of losing their spouse, their kids, their standing in the
> community, & everything else they hold dear. One hopes they can trust their
> mate, their kids, their friends & neighbors, but if there is a simple
> effective way to insure against any of the possible risks -- like Hep B --
> it makes sense to utilize it.

Again, it sounds as if you are recommending that everyone be
vaccinated against Hep B, not just children. Why do you feel that is
necessary when even the CDC committee on vaccine policy does not?

> > If you cannot comprehend family relationships based on mutual trust,
> > responsibility, and integrity, your opinions are more understandable.
> > But, believe it or not, some of us do manage to have such
> > relationships with our loved ones; our spouses and even our
> > teen-agers. I have worked hard to achieve, and had the good fortune
> > to succeed in having a close family. Sneer at such naivity if you
> > wish, condemn me for being foolish in trusting those I love. I can
> > live with that. I know that I am the wise and lucky one in having
> > such relationships, and that you are a fool if you believe that such
> > relationships do not exist.
>
> I don't condemn anyone for trusting their spouse. I console many of them
> when that trust has been violated. I would never say there aren't any such
> relationships, but I would challenge ANYONE to know *for sure* which
> relationships are worthy of unquestioning 100% trust.

I have not recommended unquestioning 100% trust. There are a great
many factors that go into what certainty one has of one's spouse.
Their personality, their history, the way they treat other people, the
quality of the relationship, the depth of knowledge you have of them.
All these things get assessed, mostly unconsciously, when making
decisions based on trust. And what level of certainty is appropriate
before staking one's life on that trust? Is 99% enough? 99.99999%?
We must each decide that for ourselves. What I am saying is that
sometimes, such trust is justified. It's as much a mistake to assume
that such trust is never justified as it is to assume that it always
is.

Do you always insist on using a condom with your life partner? Or are
you willing to accept the risk that he's passing on some venereal
disease to you?

> I am often privy to information (through my work) that someone hasn't shared
> with their SO (or anybody else in some situations). Some of these
> revelations shock the hell out of me & I'm sure they'd blow the socks off
> the trusting spouse, were they to hear them. These are folks whose SO's
> would swear they had nothing to worry about WRT to their spouse exposing
> them to any dangers. Yet their unwavering trust doesn't change the truth.
> Getting a Hep B vaccine protects one from Hep B no matter what the source of
> possible infection is. Having a faithful monogamous relationship doesn't
> prevent the transmission of the virus in other ways. With used syringes
> found on the beaches & playgrounds, Hep B can be an accidental needle stick
> away for someone playing there. Unfortunately, sexual assaults happen, &
> the idea that a victim dealing with an already horrendous event should find
> out they have also been infected with Hep B is a sad one indeed.

Again, you seem to be recommending the Hep B vaccine for everyone.
Not just children and high risk adults. A somewhat different stance
than others have taken, but it does eliminate the question of why my
child should get the vaccine but not me. You apparently think we both
should.

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, abacus wrote:

> I'm not adamant about my kids avoiding that tiny risk. I'd be
> perfectly willing to get them (and me) immunized if I felt the risk of
> the disease (which is known and considerably less than 30% - that's
> the percentage of cases of unknown origin) was greater than the
> unknown risk of the vaccination. What I asked (and has yet to be
> answered) is the question above:

Your rhetoric is interestingly biased.

> If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
> should my small children need it?

> If the risk is not sufficient for me, a sexually active albeit
> monogamous adult, to need the vaccine, why do my children, who are not
> sexually active, need the vaccine?

Because just as adults engage in activities which small
children don't, small children engage in activities
which adults don't.

Not always willingly.

--
| 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

[Mark Probert]

abacus wrote:

> Mark Probert > wrote in message >...
>
>>abacus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>
(abacus) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No one can tell for every child. I certainly can't tell for other
>>>>>children, but I can make that determination for my own. I know who's
>>>>>living in my household and I know that no one is engaging in high risk
>>>>>behaviors. I can accurately determine the risk of Hep B infection for
>>>>>my kids.
>>>>
>>>>Do they ever get to visit any other houses? What about those
>>>>families and their risk factors?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
>>>during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
>>>why isn't it recommended for me?
>>
>>Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
>>See the difference? I doubt it.
>
>
> Uh, the conversation was about Hep B, not pertussis. See the
> difference? I doubt it.

Fair point.

Your children's risk, for HepB is for a life long condition *starting at
a much younger age.*

In that sense, the risk is different. Perhaps one of the MDs can address
the difference of HepB if it is contracted as a child ans opposed to an
adult, if there is a difference.

[Mark Probert]

PF Riley wrote:

> On 16 Aug 2003 16:39:53 -0700, (abacus) wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Probert > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>abacus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message >...
>>>>
>>>>
(abacus) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
>>>>during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
>>>>why isn't it recommended for me?
>>>
>>>Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
>>>See the difference? I doubt it.
>>
>>Uh, the conversation was about Hep B, not pertussis. See the
>>difference? I doubt it.
>
>
> It's called an analogy. Kids are much, much more likely to be killed
> by pertussis just as they are much, much more likely to become chronic
> carriers of hepatitis B if acutely infected. It is the chronic carrier
> state that leads to the majority of morbidity and mortality of
> hepatitis B.


Is the seriousness of the sequelae different for kids and adults?

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, abacus wrote:

> Are you recommending that everyone be vaccinated against Hep B? Not
> just children?

I would. The reason we focus on children is simply that
there is that the mechanisms exist for getting kids
immunized, and nothing comparable exists for adults in
the general case.

Medically this is far from ideal, but socially it's
what we've got to work with.

--
| 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

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> abacus > wrote:
>> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> abacus > wrote:
>> >> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >> >...
>> >> >> In article >,
>> >> >> abacus > wrote:
>> >> >> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >> >> >...
>> >> >> >> In article >,
>>
>> >> >> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
>> >> >> >being non-existant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a more
>> >> >> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
>> >> >> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
>> >> >
>> >> >Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
>> >> >child's parents can.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
>> >> things right up for me.
>> >
>> >It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
>> >your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
>>
>> Does it not?
>
>No, it doesn't require omniscience. In some cases, a bit of detective
>work might be required, but not omniscience. <g>

But you're claiming that you *know*, with great confidence, what's
going on in your household. And you're probably right -- that nobody
there is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior. The problem is that
many other people think that about their households too, and some of
them are wrong. Since we don't have a magic wand to use to determine
which ones are right and which aren't, what do we do?

>> I know you tried to slough off Tsu's example of women
>> with AIDS who were infected by their husbands, but unless you're going
>> to try to make the claim that they were all idiots and you're so smart
>> you can never be fooled (nor can anyone else who doesn't want to have
>> their kids vaccinated for hep B), I think you've got a tough sell
>> here.
>
>I'm not making that claim. Straw man argument.

But it boils down to your confidence that you know what's going on.
Going back to my point above, many people have such confidence, but
some of them are wrong. They can be just as confident as you are that
nobody in their household needs hepB vaccination, but they're wrong.

Even beyond this, there is no way to guarantee that your child won't
be victimized by someone else, outside your household. I admit this
isn't common, but it's not impossible either. I don't expect to get
into a traffic accident on my way to work, either, and I've been
right -- except one time, when some idiot backed out of a parking
space when I was twenty feet from him. Glad I had my seat belt on.

Either we gamble, or we say "we can't be certain" and we take the
precaution, even though the odds are we won't need it. After all, my
seatbelt could conceivably injure me -- but the odds of that are a lot
smaller than the odds it'll save me.

>> >But if my children attended school, I would be required to get them
>> >vaccinated for Hep B. A mandate I disgree with because Hep B is not a
>> >communicable disease in the same league as, say, measles or whooping
>> >cough.
>> >
>> >I don't understand why all children need to be vaccinated but not all
>> >adults. Seems to me that adults have a higher risk of exposure than
>> >children. But only adults who are classified as high risk are
>> >recommended for the vaccine. It really seems to me evidence of the
>> >pro-vaccination bias of the committee. If I don't need to be
>> >vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world should my small children
>> >need it?
>>
>> You are not going to drag me into a discussion of legal requirements;
>> I am merely discussing risks.
>>
>> Meanwhile, as best I can tell, you and Roger are taking the position
>> that the 30% of hep B positive people who have no known risk factors
>> are lying, and really do have risk factors that they didn't tell the
>> investigators about. That's your privilege, but what if there are
>> other vectors we don't yet know about. 30% is a pretty big
>> percentage. You're adamant about your kids avoiding a very tiny risk
>> from the vaccine, but skipping over this large unknown.
>
>I'm not adamant about my kids avoiding that tiny risk. I'd be
>perfectly willing to get them (and me) immunized if I felt the risk of
>the disease (which is known and considerably less than 30% - that's
>the percentage of cases of unknown origin) was greater than the
>unknown risk of the vaccination.

I already said, in another posting, that the lifetime risk of
contracting hepB is less than 20%.

>What I asked (and has yet to be >answered) is the question above:
>
>If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
>should my small children need it?

Speaking of straw men: who says you don't need to be vaccinated
against it? As someone else pointed out, we mostly vaccinate kids
because it's easier. But I still get my tetanus booster shot every
ten years. I get my flu shots every year, too.

>If the risk is not sufficient for me, a sexually active albeit
>monogamous adult, to need the vaccine, why do my children, who are not
>sexually active, need the vaccine?
>
>Waiting a few years may result in an improved vaccine. In fact, it
>already has. The vaccine is safer now than it was 4 years ago when I
>declined it for my then newborn son.

True. So are you going to have him vaccinated now?

-- 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)

[PF Riley]

On 17 Aug 2003 06:25:19 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

(PF Riley) wrote in message >...
>>
>> It's called an analogy. Kids are much, much more likely to be killed
>> by pertussis just as they are much, much more likely to become chronic
>> carriers of hepatitis B if acutely infected. It is the chronic carrier
>> state that leads to the majority of morbidity and mortality of
>> hepatitis B.
>>
>
>Sorry, I don't get the analogy. You'll have to go into more detail.
>(Is it that kids are more likely to become chronic carriers of hep B
>than adults if acutely infected?

Yes, neonates have about a 90% chance of becoming chronic carriers
after acute infection. The risk declines to about 50% during the
school age years, and by adulthood only 10% of those acutely infected
become chronic carriers.

>If so, I wasn't aware of that.)

Typical of hepatitis B vaccine critics. It was, if I recall correctly,
Andy Schlafly's continued admissions while trying to debate vaccine
policy that he knew almost nothing about hepatitis B virology or
epidemiology that eventually led to his disappearance from this
newsgroup.

>Or conversely, you could just answer the question asked originally.

Done elsewhere.

PF

[PF Riley]

On 17 Aug 2003 05:18:37 -0700, (abacus) wrote:
>
>If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
>should my small children need it?

First, who says you don't need it?

Second, vaccine policy has typically been formulated for children. It
wasn't until February 2002 that the ACIP first developed
recommendations for adult immunization, with the understanding that
these would be passed along to medical specialists (e.g., internists,
gynecologists, etc.) who are not typically trained in vaccination.

Third, the recommendations for hepatitis B vaccination in adults is
geared towards "high risk" individuals with the understanding that
certain individuals may safely turn down the vaccine (e.g., my
90-year-old grandmother, who is unlikely to begin using IV drugs or
sleeping around -- but if she did develop renal failure and need
dialysis she would get the vaccine.) All children, however, are (1)
more likely to become chronic carriers if acutely infected (unlike
adults who have made it past that stage without becoming infected),
and (2) more likely to develop "high risk" behaviors as they go
through adolescence and young adulthood (please save your "not *MY*
child!" argument) so that immunizing them all BEFORE they have
acquired an infection is preferable to waiting until a child develops
high risk behaviors and THEN expecting him to come in for a series of
three shots (as research has shown that the former strategy and not
the latter both increases the likelihood of completing the vaccination
series and in reducing the burden of chronic hepatitis B in a
population.)

PF

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, abacus wrote:

> "D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
>> In >, abacus wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not adamant about my kids avoiding that tiny risk. I'd be
>> > perfectly willing to get them (and me) immunized if I felt the risk of
>> > the disease (which is known and considerably less than 30% - that's
>> > the percentage of cases of unknown origin) was greater than the
>> > unknown risk of the vaccination. What I asked (and has yet to be
>> > answered) is the question above:
>>
>> Your rhetoric is interestingly biased.
>
> Thank you. I strive to ask interesting questions that others don't.

Why, I wonder, do you assume that the risk of the disease
is any better known than the risk of the vaccine? I would
hazard that the risk of the vaccine is if anything better
known (for useful purposes) than that of the disease.

Our uncertainty over the vaccine risk is in the single-digit
parts per million, comparted to the disease risk uncertainty
being at least two orders of magnitude greater.

>> > If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
>> > should my small children need it?
>>
>> > If the risk is not sufficient for me, a sexually active albeit
>> > monogamous adult, to need the vaccine, why do my children, who are not
>> > sexually active, need the vaccine?
>>
>> Because just as adults engage in activities which small
>> children don't, small children engage in activities
>> which adults don't.
>>
>> Not always willingly.
>
> I don't follow you here. We were earlier (it's been clipped)
> discussing the risk incurred during visits to friends. Could you be
> more specific about what activities children engage in (willingly or
> not) that adults do not that would increase the risk? Are we still
> talking about casual visits to friends' houses?

Very few adults, for instance, dig around with their hands
in playgrounds. They're not much into biting each other,
either. The list is extensive.

Hepatitis B virus has a remarkably long half-life outside of
the human body, especially in cool places away from sunlight.
For some reason, children like exploring such places more than
most adults do.

--
| 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

[Jeff Utz]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> (David Wright) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > abacus > wrote:
> > (David Wright) wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> In article >,
> > >> abacus > wrote:
> > >> (David Wright) wrote in message
> > >> >...
> > >> >> In article >,
> >
> > >> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
> > >> >being non-existant.
> > >>
> > >> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a
more
> > >> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
> > >> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
> > >
> > >Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
> > >child's parents can.
> >
> > Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
> > things right up for me.
>
> It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
> your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
>

Wrong. Teenagers have sex, even when their parents think they are not having
sex.

(...)

> But if my children attended school, I would be required to get them
> vaccinated for Hep B. A mandate I disgree with because Hep B is not a
> communicable disease in the same league as, say, measles or whooping
> cough.

No, but hepatitis B causes liver cancer, liver failure and hepatitis. These
are potentially very serious diseases.

> I don't understand why all children need to be vaccinated but not all
> adults. Seems to me that adults have a higher risk of exposure than
> children. But only adults who are classified as high risk are
> recommended for the vaccine. It really seems to me evidence of the
> pro-vaccination bias of the committee. If I don't need to be
> vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world should my small children
> need it?

All children will enter high risk groups (teenagers). Whether or not they
enter high risk groups because they have sex with men, will do IV drugs or
have sex with prostitutes cannot be predicted, either by the medical
establishment or their parents.

Plus, there is a risk of Hep B in babies from their mothers (which is small
but not zero if their mothers test negative for the disease) or from blood
transfusions. It is impossible to predict 100% accurately which kids will
need blood products.

Jeff

[Jeff Utz]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> Mark Probert > wrote in message
>...
> > abacus wrote:
> >
> > > Tsu Dho Nimh > wrote in message
>...

(...)

> > > Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
> > > during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
> > > why isn't it recommended for me?
> >
> > Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
> > See the difference? I doubt it.
>
> Uh, the conversation was about Hep B, not pertussis. See the
> difference? I doubt it.

Good debating tactic. Bring up a new subject, then say that the conversation
was about something else.

Jeff

[Eric Bohlman]

(PF Riley) wrote in
:

> dialysis she would get the vaccine.) All children, however, are (1)
> more likely to become chronic carriers if acutely infected (unlike
> adults who have made it past that stage without becoming infected),
> and (2) more likely to develop "high risk" behaviors as they go
> through adolescence and young adulthood (please save your "not *MY*
> child!" argument) so that immunizing them all BEFORE they have
> acquired an infection is preferable to waiting until a child develops
> high risk behaviors and THEN expecting him to come in for a series of
> three shots (as research has shown that the former strategy and not
> the latter both increases the likelihood of completing the vaccination
> series and in reducing the burden of chronic hepatitis B in a
> population.)

That second point is really important, since the peak time for those high-
risk behaviors (late adolescence) is also when people are likely to have
very little routine contact with doctors *and* when they're most likely to
be "feeling immortal."

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Mark Probert > wrote:

>Your children's risk, for HepB is for a life long condition *starting at
>a much younger age.*

>In that sense, the risk is different. Perhaps one of the MDs can address
>the difference of HepB if it is contracted as a child ans opposed to an
>adult, if there is a difference.

Children are more likely to become permanent carriers, wiht the
likelihood being higer the younger thay are. That leads to
chronic liver problems.

http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/hepB.html

HBV causes acute and chronic hepatitis. The chances of becoming
chronically infected depends upon age. About 90% of infected
neonates and 50% of infected young children will become
chronically infected. In contrast, only about 5% to 10% of
immunocompetent adults infected with HBV develop chronic
hepatitis B. In some individuals who become chronically infected,
especially neonates and children, the acute infection will not be
clinically apparent.
Some individuals with chronic hepatitis B will have clinically
insignificant or minimal liver disease and never develop
complications. Others will have clinically apparent chronic
hepatitis. Some will go on to develop cirrhosis. Individuals with
chronic hepatitis B, especially those with cirrhosis but even
so-called chronic carriers, are at an increased risk of
developing hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer).
Although this type of cancer is relatively rare in the United
States, it is the leading cause of cancer death in the world,
primarily because HBV infection is endemic in the East.


http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/factsht/hepb.htm
(nice map of incidence of chronic infection)

RISK FACTOR:
Close personal contact with someone who is a chronic HBV carrier.
HBV is highly contagious, infection can occur by sharing razors
and toothbrushes as the virus can remain infectious for up to (7)
days even on dry surfaces.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[abacus]

(David Wright) wrote in message >...
> In article >,

> >> >It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
> >> >your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
> >>
> >> Does it not?
> >
> >No, it doesn't require omniscience. In some cases, a bit of detective
> >work might be required, but not omniscience. <g>
>
> But you're claiming that you *know*, with great confidence, what's
> going on in your household. And you're probably right -- that nobody
> there is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior. The problem is that
> many other people think that about their households too, and some of
> them are wrong. Since we don't have a magic wand to use to determine
> which ones are right and which aren't, what do we do?

Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.

> >> I know you tried to slough off Tsu's example of women
> >> with AIDS who were infected by their husbands, but unless you're going
> >> to try to make the claim that they were all idiots and you're so smart
> >> you can never be fooled (nor can anyone else who doesn't want to have
> >> their kids vaccinated for hep B), I think you've got a tough sell
> >> here.
> >
> >I'm not making that claim. Straw man argument.
>
> But it boils down to your confidence that you know what's going on.
> Going back to my point above, many people have such confidence, but
> some of them are wrong. They can be just as confident as you are that
> nobody in their household needs hepB vaccination, but they're wrong.

> Even beyond this, there is no way to guarantee that your child won't
> be victimized by someone else, outside your household. I admit this
> isn't common, but it's not impossible either. I don't expect to get
> into a traffic accident on my way to work, either, and I've been
> right -- except one time, when some idiot backed out of a parking
> space when I was twenty feet from him. Glad I had my seat belt on.

> Either we gamble, or we say "we can't be certain" and we take the
> precaution, even though the odds are we won't need it. After all, my
> seatbelt could conceivably injure me -- but the odds of that are a lot
> smaller than the odds it'll save me.

Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.

> >If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
> >should my small children need it?
>
> Speaking of straw men: who says you don't need to be vaccinated
> against it? As someone else pointed out, we mostly vaccinate kids
> because it's easier. But I still get my tetanus booster shot every
> ten years. I get my flu shots every year, too.

My understanding is that the current official CDC recommendation for
Hep B is for all children, but only for adults in high risk
situations. The flu shots are generally recommended for everyone with
exceptions such as pregnant women, those with compromised immune
systems, etc. Am I mistaken about this?

> >If the risk is not sufficient for me, a sexually active albeit
> >monogamous adult, to need the vaccine, why do my children, who are not
> >sexually active, need the vaccine?
> >
> >Waiting a few years may result in an improved vaccine. In fact, it
> >already has. The vaccine is safer now than it was 4 years ago when I
> >declined it for my then newborn son.
>
> True. So are you going to have him vaccinated now?

As soon as I am convinced that the benefit outweighs the risk. It
could be even safer 5 years from now. The big problem is that I don't
have adequate faith in the integrity of the CDC officials in regards
to their recommendations for vaccinations. That's why it's such a
problem to have only biased individuals on their policy making
committees. Until I can have faith in the integrity of their
decisions and the validity of the analysis regarding the risks of
vaccinations, I'll wait to do so until if and when my children fall
into a high risk category, the same approach I will take for myself.

[Mark Probert]

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> Mark Probert > wrote:
>
>
>>Your children's risk, for HepB is for a life long condition *starting at
>>a much younger age.*
>
>
>>In that sense, the risk is different. Perhaps one of the MDs can address
>>the difference of HepB if it is contracted as a child ans opposed to an
>>adult, if there is a difference.
>
>
> Children are more likely to become permanent carriers, wiht the
> likelihood being higer the younger thay are. That leads to
> chronic liver problems.
>
> http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/hepB.html
>
> HBV causes acute and chronic hepatitis. The chances of becoming
> chronically infected depends upon age. About 90% of infected
> neonates and 50% of infected young children will become
> chronically infected. In contrast, only about 5% to 10% of
> immunocompetent adults infected with HBV develop chronic
> hepatitis B. In some individuals who become chronically infected,
> especially neonates and children, the acute infection will not be
> clinically apparent.
> Some individuals with chronic hepatitis B will have clinically
> insignificant or minimal liver disease and never develop
> complications. Others will have clinically apparent chronic
> hepatitis. Some will go on to develop cirrhosis. Individuals with
> chronic hepatitis B, especially those with cirrhosis but even
> so-called chronic carriers, are at an increased risk of
> developing hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer).
> Although this type of cancer is relatively rare in the United
> States, it is the leading cause of cancer death in the world,
> primarily because HBV infection is endemic in the East.
>
>
> http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/factsht/hepb.htm
> (nice map of incidence of chronic infection)
>
> RISK FACTOR:
> Close personal contact with someone who is a chronic HBV carrier.
> HBV is highly contagious, infection can occur by sharing razors
> and toothbrushes as the virus can remain infectious for up to (7)
> days even on dry surfaces.

Thanks. Your repsonse was what I suspected, i.e. that kids bear a higher
risk than adults.

[fred & michele]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
>> "fred & michele" >
wrote

> Sigh, you know, you've given a lot of rare examples, but you haven't
> answered the question. Rare examples exists for both sides - like the
> couple who meets when both are virgins, marry and neither ever has sex
> with anyone else.

I would wager that the examples I've given are not nearly as rare as you'd
like to believe. And while those examples were given in the past tense, in
many cases they are happening in the present tense. Are you convinced that
most people are willing to lose their spouse, their kids, & everything else
they value as a result of confessing their infidelity, bisexuality, or IV
drug use to their family? I've worked with soooo many people who definitely
weren't.

> At some point, the original statement got clipped, which had to do
> with whether or not it requires omniscience for someone to know if the
> members of their household are engaged (note the current tense, not
> past tense) in high risk behaviors. Your examples are not relevant to
> that statement.

See above.

> Again, it sounds as if you are recommending that everyone be
> vaccinated against Hep B, not just children. Why do you feel that is
> necessary when even the CDC committee on vaccine policy does not?

I am not recommending the vaccine for everyone. Everyone should be aware of
the whole picture. Many people mistakenly believe they are not at risk
because they think their relationship is monogamous, that their SO has no
past or present risky behaviors, that their friends, neighbors, or loved
ones are completely honest with them. IF you are right (& I hope everybody
has honest folks in their lives), your risk for contracting Hep B, HIV, etc.
is quite small. IF you are mistaken & are one of (sadly) many people with a
SO who has a secret (past or present) that could endanger your health, you
may be assessing your risk based on erroneous information.

> > I don't condemn anyone for trusting their spouse. I console many of
them
> > when that trust has been violated. I would never say there aren't any
such
> > relationships, but I would challenge ANYONE to know *for sure* which
> > relationships are worthy of unquestioning 100% trust.
>
> I have not recommended unquestioning 100% trust. There are a great
> many factors that go into what certainty one has of one's spouse.
> Their personality, their history, the way they treat other people, the
> quality of the relationship, the depth of knowledge you have of them.
> All these things get assessed, mostly unconsciously, when making
> decisions based on trust. And what level of certainty is appropriate
> before staking one's life on that trust? Is 99% enough? 99.99999%?
> We must each decide that for ourselves. What I am saying is that
> sometimes, such trust is justified. It's as much a mistake to assume
> that such trust is never justified as it is to assume that it always
> is.

Agreed. One has to assess the risk & make one's decisions based on the
facts & what level of risk one is willing to take. In order to asses the
risk realistically, all possibilities have to be considered.

> Do you always insist on using a condom with your life partner? Or are
> you willing to accept the risk that he's passing on some venereal
> disease to you?

Based on the information I have, the testing we've both undergone, & the
protection itself, no. Can I say with complete certainty there's no risk?
Hell no. [BTW, I don't put as much stock in condoms as some people do --
too many "rubber babies" are walking around for me to count on them as 100%
protection.]

My work over the years with IV drug users most likely increased my risk of
Hep B infection -- ditto for my work with HIV+ clients & patients. We were
both married to others before we met. While testing has shown me fortunate
to have avoided both, I have gladly been vaccinated for Hep B.. We are both
still tested regularly after almost 12 years together -- if there ever is a
positive result, hopefully the other one will not yet have been infected.
I'm not a mind reader, nor can I ever guarantee anyone's else's behavior but
my own. Both of us find this perfectly reasonable.

>Once again, you seem to be recommending the Hep B vaccine for everyone.

I am recommending that people examine every possible risk. Including the
ones they'd rather not think about.

> Not just children and high risk adults. A somewhat different stance
> than others have taken, but it does eliminate the question of why my
> child should get the vaccine but not me. You apparently think we both
> should.

I think that weighing the risk of vaccination against the risk of infection
with Hep B usually favors the vaccine. Whenever I hear "I thought he was
faithful" or "I didn't know she used IV drugs before we met" from an
infected patient, I feel it's a shame that something honorable like trusting
someone else turned out to be a bad idea. And that a simple vaccine --
something that isn't inconvenient, doesn't interfere with one's life in any
way, & isn't expensive -- could've spared someone a lot of grief. And maybe
their health & life.

I sincerely hope your trust is never betrayed by your SO, friends,
neighbors, or anyone else. In light of what I've come across over the
years, the Hep B vaccine gives me one less thing to give even a second's
concern to.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

[abacus]

"fred & michele" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "fred & michele" >
> wrote
>
> > Sigh, you know, you've given a lot of rare examples, but you haven't
> > answered the question. Rare examples exists for both sides - like the
> > couple who meets when both are virgins, marry and neither ever has sex
> > with anyone else.
>
> I would wager that the examples I've given are not nearly as rare as you'd
> like to believe. And while those examples were given in the past tense, in
> many cases they are happening in the present tense. Are you convinced that
> most people are willing to lose their spouse, their kids, & everything else
> they value as a result of confessing their infidelity, bisexuality, or IV
> drug use to their family? I've worked with soooo many people who definitely
> weren't.

You misunderstand. It's not a matter of blind trust, but a matter of
wide-eyed trust. There are plenty of people who believe, correctly,
that their spouse has never cheated. Mine does.

While certainly it's possible to be fooled by a deceitful spouse,
there are plenty of people who can trust in their spouse because of
the personality make-up, depth of knowledge and history of the person.
If your spouse has a high level of personal integrity and never lies
to you about anything, its a considerably different situation than if
your spouse was married to someone else when you started dating. If
you're married to an incredibly shy person who hates leaving the house
or meeting new people, and never wants to go anywhere without you, the
odds are considerably lower than for a gregarious spouse who regularly
has a night out with the gang from work. If can read your spouse like
a book, if you know when they are angry, sad, or resentful about
something before they are conscious of it themselves, then you can be
considerably more certain of detecting any unfaithfulness than if your
spouse is an utter enigma in many ways.

> > At some point, the original statement got clipped, which had to do
> > with whether or not it requires omniscience for someone to know if the
> > members of their household are engaged (note the current tense, not
> > past tense) in high risk behaviors. Your examples are not relevant to
> > that statement.
>
> I am not recommending the vaccine for everyone. Everyone should be aware of
> the whole picture. Many people mistakenly believe they are not at risk
> because they think their relationship is monogamous, that their SO has no
> past or present risky behaviors, that their friends, neighbors, or loved
> ones are completely honest with them. IF you are right (& I hope everybody
> has honest folks in their lives), your risk for contracting Hep B, HIV, etc.
> is quite small. IF you are mistaken & are one of (sadly) many people with a
> SO who has a secret (past or present) that could endanger your health, you
> may be assessing your risk based on erroneous information.

Thank you for your concern, but believe it or not some people can, in
fact, trust in the integrity and honesty of their loved one with a
high degree of confidence based on reality, not wishful thinking. I
feel I can.

> > > I don't condemn anyone for trusting their spouse. I console many of
> them
> > > when that trust has been violated. I would never say there aren't any
> such
> > > relationships, but I would challenge ANYONE to know *for sure* which
> > > relationships are worthy of unquestioning 100% trust.
> >
> > I have not recommended unquestioning 100% trust. There are a great
> > many factors that go into what certainty one has of one's spouse.
> > Their personality, their history, the way they treat other people, the
> > quality of the relationship, the depth of knowledge you have of them.
> > All these things get assessed, mostly unconsciously, when making
> > decisions based on trust. And what level of certainty is appropriate
> > before staking one's life on that trust? Is 99% enough? 99.99999%?
> > We must each decide that for ourselves. What I am saying is that
> > sometimes, such trust is justified. It's as much a mistake to assume
> > that such trust is never justified as it is to assume that it always
> > is.
>
> Agreed. One has to assess the risk & make one's decisions based on the
> facts & what level of risk one is willing to take. In order to asses the
> risk realistically, all possibilities have to be considered.

I haven't suggested otherwise. Why did you assume it?

> > Do you always insist on using a condom with your life partner? Or are
> > you willing to accept the risk that he's passing on some venereal
> > disease to you?
>
> Based on the information I have, the testing we've both undergone, & the
> protection itself, no. Can I say with complete certainty there's no risk?
> Hell no. [BTW, I don't put as much stock in condoms as some people do --
> too many "rubber babies" are walking around for me to count on them as 100%
> protection.]

You know, other people get tested regularly too. As a regular blood
donor, I get my blood tested several times a year for a variety of
diseases. I've yet to have them call about any positive result.

> My work over the years with IV drug users most likely increased my risk of
> Hep B infection -- ditto for my work with HIV+ clients & patients. We were
> both married to others before we met. While testing has shown me fortunate
> to have avoided both, I have gladly been vaccinated for Hep B.. We are both
> still tested regularly after almost 12 years together -- if there ever is a
> positive result, hopefully the other one will not yet have been infected.
> I'm not a mind reader, nor can I ever guarantee anyone's else's behavior but
> my own. Both of us find this perfectly reasonable.

If you consider that a reasonable course of action, why are
admonishing me for doing so?

> >Once again, you seem to be recommending the Hep B vaccine for everyone.
>
> I am recommending that people examine every possible risk. Including the
> ones they'd rather not think about.

I agree. But just because someone has decided certain risks are
unlikely enough not to be of concern doesn't mean they haven't
considered them as a possibility.

> > Not just children and high risk adults. A somewhat different stance
> > than others have taken, but it does eliminate the question of why my
> > child should get the vaccine but not me. You apparently think we both
> > should.
>
> I think that weighing the risk of vaccination against the risk of infection
> with Hep B usually favors the vaccine.

I disagree. Because I don't trust the offical figures and analysis on
adverse *incidents* and because I rate the risk of disease for me and
my children to be considerably lower than average, I've come to a
different conclusion.

By the way, it sure sounds like you're recommending the vaccine for
everyone here. Under what circumstances do you advise against it
then?

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>
>> >> >It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
>> >> >your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
>> >>
>> >> Does it not?
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't require omniscience. In some cases, a bit of detective
>> >work might be required, but not omniscience. <g>
>>
>> But you're claiming that you *know*, with great confidence, what's
>> going on in your household. And you're probably right -- that nobody
>> there is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior. The problem is that
>> many other people think that about their households too, and some of
>> them are wrong. Since we don't have a magic wand to use to determine
>> which ones are right and which aren't, what do we do?
>
>Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
>that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
>and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
>Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
>their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
>for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.

I don't share your faith in that, actually. People are, on average,
just terrible at assessing risk.

<snip, because this is getting too long>

>Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
>idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
>assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
>Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
>benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
>alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.

But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.

>> >If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
>> >should my small children need it?
>>
>> Speaking of straw men: who says you don't need to be vaccinated
>> against it? As someone else pointed out, we mostly vaccinate kids
>> because it's easier. But I still get my tetanus booster shot every
>> ten years. I get my flu shots every year, too.
>
>My understanding is that the current official CDC recommendation for
>Hep B is for all children, but only for adults in high risk
>situations. The flu shots are generally recommended for everyone with
>exceptions such as pregnant women, those with compromised immune
>systems, etc. Am I mistaken about this?

I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
I can't remember them offhand). There's been a more recent suggestion
that childhood vaccines should include influenza, but I don't think
that's part of the official schedule just yet. The anti-thimerosal
crowd is already foaming at the mouth over the flu shot issue, since
that vaccine isn't mercury-free (or at least not yet).

>> True. So are you going to have him vaccinated now?
>
>As soon as I am convinced that the benefit outweighs the risk. It
>could be even safer 5 years from now. The big problem is that I don't
>have adequate faith in the integrity of the CDC officials in regards
>to their recommendations for vaccinations. That's why it's such a
>problem to have only biased individuals on their policy making
>committees. Until I can have faith in the integrity of their
>decisions and the validity of the analysis regarding the risks of
>vaccinations, I'll wait to do so until if and when my children fall
>into a high risk category, the same approach I will take for myself.

Well, I just hope your kids don't suffer for your decision. After
all, even kids from good homes can wind up having unsafe sex, becoming
IV drug abusers, etc. Not that that's the odds-on proposition, but it
*does* happen depressingly often.

I'm just the suspenders-and-belt type, myself.

-- 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)

[PF Riley]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:25:15 GMT, (David
Wright) wrote:
>
>Well, I just hope your kids don't suffer for your decision. After
>all, even kids from good homes can wind up having unsafe sex, becoming
>IV drug abusers, etc. Not that that's the odds-on proposition, but it
>*does* happen depressingly often.

Just last week I saw a 16-year-old church-going honors student who
just spent a good portion of her summer doing missionary work with her
parents. She had a little cystitis related to the sexual intercourse
she has with her boyfriend. She's on the pill and uses condoms,
fortunately, which she gets at Planned Parenthood. Her parents, of
course, think she's a virgin.

PF

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, David Wright wrote:

> I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
> considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
> I can't remember them offhand).

Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
most of them.

--
| 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]

(David Wright) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> abacus > wrote:
> (David Wright) wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,
>
> >> >> >It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
> >> >> >your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does it not?
> >> >
> >> >No, it doesn't require omniscience. In some cases, a bit of detective
> >> >work might be required, but not omniscience. <g>
> >>
> >> But you're claiming that you *know*, with great confidence, what's
> >> going on in your household. And you're probably right -- that nobody
> >> there is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior. The problem is that
> >> many other people think that about their households too, and some of
> >> them are wrong. Since we don't have a magic wand to use to determine
> >> which ones are right and which aren't, what do we do?
> >
> >Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
> >that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
> >and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
> >Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
> >their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
> >for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.
>
> I don't share your faith in that, actually. People are, on average,
> just terrible at assessing risk.

I don't know that I have a greater faith than you do in their ability.
I just don't believe that a uniform policy will result in better
choices overall than giving individuals the information necessary to
make decisions based on their particular situation and needs.

> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.
>
> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.

Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
have been prevented by vaccinateion.

I think that a) overall better choices will result from allowing
individuals the freedome to make their choices and b) there is more
incentive to make good decisions and more accountability for poor
decisions when parents do so for their individual child than when
policy makers make the decision for everyone.

I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves. For this
newsgroup, it's vaccination decisions that get debated, and
occasionally other health habits like eating/exercise/smoking. In
others, it's disciplinary matters, educational issues, and others.
But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
spanking or homeschooling. Currently, we still have such freedoms,
but they are definitely being attacked under the guise of "protecting
the children".

[abacus]

"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message >...
> In >, David Wright wrote:
>
> > I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
> > considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
> > I can't remember them offhand).
>
> Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
> There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
> most of them.

Interesting. In our area, during the flue season, vaccines are
cheaply and widely available, many employers will provide a site.
Some grocery stores do too. The impression given (from the newspaper
and other media, not the best sources I must admit) is that everyone
should get them unless they fall into an exception category. I'll
keep that in mind this year.

[fred & michele]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "fred & michele" > wrote in message
>...

>>Are you convinced that
> > most people are willing to lose their spouse, their kids, & everything
else
> > they value as a result of confessing their infidelity, bisexuality, or
IV
> > drug use to their family? I've worked with soooo many people who
definitely
> > weren't.
>
> You misunderstand. It's not a matter of blind trust, but a matter of
> wide-eyed trust. There are plenty of people who believe, correctly,
> that their spouse has never cheated. Mine does.

How does anyone know for sure? I'm sure many people who would've bet their
very lives on their spouse's fidelity (or absence of behavior like IV drug
use) found out differently. You can be sure *you've* never cheated or
engaged in risky behavior -- you can never be 100% sure of another person.
It would be nice if there was a way to be, but there isn't.

> While certainly it's possible to be fooled by a deceitful spouse,
> there are plenty of people who can trust in their spouse because of
> the personality make-up, depth of knowledge and history of the person.

Unfortunately, the old saying "it's the ones you least suspect" often rings
true. The fact that my husband sometimes still *pleasantly* surprises me
tells me it's also possible (not likely, but still entirely possible) he
could surprise me in a much less pleasant way as well. Few people would
advertise things to their SO that they thought would probably drive the
person they love away.

> If your spouse has a high level of personal integrity and never lies
> to you about anything, its a considerably different situation than if
> your spouse was married to someone else when you started dating.

Of course red flags like previous infidelity in another relationship can
give someone a clue about their loved one's level of honesty. But keep in
mind there is a first time for everything, & the time for dishonesty may
well be in the present relationship.

>If
> you're married to an incredibly shy person who hates leaving the house
> or meeting new people, and never wants to go anywhere without you, the
> odds are considerably lower than for a gregarious spouse who regularly
> has a night out with the gang from work. If can read your spouse like
> a book, if you know when they are angry, sad, or resentful about
> something before they are conscious of it themselves, then you can be
> considerably more certain of detecting any unfaithfulness than if your
> spouse is an utter enigma in many ways.

Those that are positive that they can read their spouse like a book are
sometimes the ones most surprised when they find out about a chapter that
must've fell out of the book. I know a LOT about my husband -- but 28 years
of his life occurred before I ever laid eyes on him or knew he existed. We
spend most of our free time together. This still wouldn't lead me to say
unequivocally that I know exactly what he'd doing at every moment, because I
don't. Behavior that would cost someone their spouse is usually well
hidden, at least initially. Quiet guys who would be called homebodies
patronize hookers. Women who wouldn't lie about most things including their
age & weight have been known to engage in lunchtime trysts in the office
parking lot & assure their husbands they were at the post office when he
phoned & got no answer.

>> IF you are right (& I hope everybody
> > has honest folks in their lives), your risk for contracting Hep B, HIV,
etc.
> > is quite small. IF you are mistaken & are one of (sadly) many people
with a
> > SO who has a secret (past or present) that could endanger your health,
you
> > may be assessing your risk based on erroneous information.

> Thank you for your concern, but believe it or not some people can, in
> fact, trust in the integrity and honesty of their loved one with a
> high degree of confidence based on reality, not wishful thinking. I
> feel I can.

If the only people who were dishonest with their spouses were the slimy ones
who wouldn't know integrity or the truth if it bit 'em, it would be easy to
avoid them. It would also be a cinch to know which people would turn out to
be cheaters, drug abusers, pedophiles, or even gamblers & alcoholics. The
fact that there are things about people that we just can't predict, things
we may well never be privy to tells a different story. It also doesn't
explain that even good, decent people can make grave mistakes that can cost
themselves & others a very high price.

>> In order to asses the
> > risk realistically, all possibilities have to be considered.

> I haven't suggested otherwise. Why did you assume it?

I'm sorry if I mis-read your post to mean that you are SURE you have little
or no risk to consider.

> You know, other people get tested regularly too. As a regular blood
> donor, I get my blood tested several times a year for a variety of
> diseases. I've yet to have them call about any positive result.

I'm glad to hear that.

> If you consider that a reasonable course of action, why are
> admonishing me for doing so?

Perhaps you are mis-reading my post. I am certainly NOT admonishing anyone
for deciding for or against getting vaccinated for Hep B. I am saying that
many people claiming they have little or no risk for contracting the virus
may not be evaluating the risk possibilities. If you think you have, that's
most definitely your decision. And I hope you are correct.

> > I am recommending that people examine every possible risk. Including
the
> > ones they'd rather not think about.
>
> I agree. But just because someone has decided certain risks are
> unlikely enough not to be of concern doesn't mean they haven't
> considered them as a possibility.

No disagreement there. Bringing up the possiblities doesn't mean you or
anyone else has to decide to assess their risk any differently. It serves
merely to bring things that should be thought about to the table. You may
have considered less-than-ideal scenarios when making your decision not to
be vaccinated -- others may have focused only on the brighter side.

> > I think that weighing the risk of vaccination against the risk of
infection
> > with Hep B usually favors the vaccine.

> I disagree. Because I don't trust the offical figures and analysis on
> adverse *incidents* and because I rate the risk of disease for me and
> my children to be considerably lower than average, I've come to a
> different conclusion.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the risks & our choices.

> By the way, it sure sounds like you're recommending the vaccine for
> everyone here. Under what circumstances do you advise against it
> then?

I don't advise against it, unless there is a specific reason like
sensitivity to yeast (one of the stated contraindications mentioned by the
manufacturer). That doesn't mean I feel it's mandated for everyone. For
those who decide their risk is low after considering the possibilities,
there is no need to vaccinate. Of course, the Hep B vaccine is like
others -- you only need it if you need it. I may have never needed a
tetanus shot in my life & it's possible I would've never contracted measles
or whooping cough even without my innoculations. I still am glad I had them
& would recommend them -- not force them -- for most people.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

[Gymmie Bob]

She has assumed a missionary position then?

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:25:15 GMT, (David
> Wright) wrote:
> >
> >Well, I just hope your kids don't suffer for your decision. After
> >all, even kids from good homes can wind up having unsafe sex, becoming
> >IV drug abusers, etc. Not that that's the odds-on proposition, but it
> >*does* happen depressingly often.
>
> Just last week I saw a 16-year-old church-going honors student who
> just spent a good portion of her summer doing missionary work with her
> parents. She had a little cystitis related to the sexual intercourse
> she has with her boyfriend. She's on the pill and uses condoms,
> fortunately, which she gets at Planned Parenthood. Her parents, of
> course, think she's a virgin.
>
> PF

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> abacus > wrote:
>> (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> In article >,
>>
>> >Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
>> >that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
>> >and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
>> >Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
>> >their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
>> >for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.
>>
>> I don't share your faith in that, actually. People are, on average,
>> just terrible at assessing risk.
>
>I don't know that I have a greater faith than you do in their ability.
> I just don't believe that a uniform policy will result in better
>choices overall than giving individuals the information necessary to
>make decisions based on their particular situation and needs.

Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.

>> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
>> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
>> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
>> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
>> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
>> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.
>>
>> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
>> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
>> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
>> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
>> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
>> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.
>
>Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
>children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
>parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
>suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
>an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
>have been prevented by vaccinateion.

Yep. I'm not blind to the consequences here. Put in seat belt laws
and you'll probably be able to find some weird case of a guy who would
have lived except that he got trapped by his seat belt and couldn't
get out. Which still doesn't mean that in most cases, he wouldn't
have been better off wearing the belt. Make vaccination mandatory and
you'll probably see some bad vaccine reactions that would not have
happened if the vaccine had been optional. But make it optional and
you'll see disease and death that would have otherwise been avoided.

>I think that a) overall better choices will result from allowing
>individuals the freedome to make their choices and b) there is more
>incentive to make good decisions and more accountability for poor
>decisions when parents do so for their individual child than when
>policy makers make the decision for everyone.

That's not entirely clear to me. The trouble with accountability in
this case is that it's mostly of the "guilty conscience" variety.
Unless kids start suing their parents for not vaccinating them.

>I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
>in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
>allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves.

It bothers me too. Many such things are overreactions to bad
parenting in isolated cases. I don't have a magic solution,
and saying "let the parents decide everything" isn't automatically
going to produce better results. Public health is like that.

>But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
>parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
>spanking or homeschooling.

I wouldn't know about the homeschooling -- certainly it can produce
some outstanding students. Does it really attract such hostility?

>Currently, we still have such freedoms, but they are definitely being
>attacked under the guise of "protecting the children".

Sometimes legitimately. This is a thorny area.

-- 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]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
>"D. C. Sessions" > wrote in message
>...
>> In >, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
>> > considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
>> > I can't remember them offhand).
>>
>> Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
>> There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
>> most of them.
>
>Interesting. In our area, during the flue season, vaccines are
>cheaply and widely available, many employers will provide a site.
>Some grocery stores do too. The impression given (from the newspaper
>and other media, not the best sources I must admit) is that everyone
>should get them unless they fall into an exception category. I'll
>keep that in mind this year.

I think there's been some caution about recommending it for everyone
if for no other reason than to prevent shortages of vaccine, thus
endangering the high-risk people. My own employer has offered flu
shots for the last few years and I've always signed up for them, but
I'd go out and pay for one myself if they stopped offering shots.

Many people each year who think they have the flu actually have
something else. A really virulent flu will put you flat on your
back for days, feeling as if you'd like to die if it weren't too
much effort.

-- 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)

[Peter Bowditch]

(David Wright) wrote:

>Many people each year who think they have the flu actually have
>something else. A really virulent flu will put you flat on your
>back for days, feeling as if you'd like to die if it weren't too
>much effort.

I could tell you a story about someone who believes in vaccination but
didn't have a flu shot this year for some reason. Then a particularly
nasty flu came along to make the most of the milder-than-usual Sydney
winter. Still, I might have lost some income during the days when I
couldn't even manage to type the URL of the local voluntary euthanasia
society's web site but at least I was spared the horrors of the sore
arm adverse effects.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?

[abacus]

(David Wright) wrote in message
> Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.

The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.

We could, for example, save thousands of lives by making tobacco and
alcohol illegal. The argument to restrict freedom in order to save
lives doesn't sway me much when you're talking about choices with
direct consequences that effect only the individual making the choice.

In my opinion seat belt laws, helmet laws, and most drug laws should
be abolished. I consider the lives lost to be part of the price of
the freedom and those who die to be those who chose to take that risk
in the same way that many of our forefathers chose to risk their lives
in battle for our freedoms. The line is crossed when others are
endangered, as for example to drink and drive. Then they are risking
not just their own health and life, but that of others who have not
voluntary accepted the risk.

> >> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
> >> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
> >> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
> >> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
> >> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
> >> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.

> >> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
> >> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
> >> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
> >> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
> >> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
> >> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.
> >
> >Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
> >children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
> >parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
> >suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
> >an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
> >have been prevented by vaccinateion.
>
> Yep. I'm not blind to the consequences here. Put in seat belt laws
> and you'll probably be able to find some weird case of a guy who would
> have lived except that he got trapped by his seat belt and couldn't
> get out. Which still doesn't mean that in most cases, he wouldn't
> have been better off wearing the belt. Make vaccination mandatory and
> you'll probably see some bad vaccine reactions that would not have
> happened if the vaccine had been optional. But make it optional and
> you'll see disease and death that would have otherwise been avoided.

We'll just have to disagree here. I prefer to allow people to make
the choice for themselves as to which risks they prefer to take than
have society impose that choice upon them. Which risk is smaller is
less a consideration than who has the right to make that choice - my
opinion is that its the individual rather the government.

> >I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
> >in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
> >allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves.
>
> It bothers me too. Many such things are overreactions to bad
> parenting in isolated cases. I don't have a magic solution,
> and saying "let the parents decide everything" isn't automatically
> going to produce better results.

Parents don't want their children to get diseases, to die in car
accidents, etc. The majority will behave responsibly without such
laws. The mandates don't guarantee better results either, just
different problems to deal with. Making alcohol illegal had a lot of
bad side effects. We see those the same problems now with other
drugs.

Car restraints save lives, no question about that. But a few years
ago, I sat in on an public discussion with local CPS officials on what
should constitute abuse and neglect. It was seriously discussed
whether a call regarding such a violation should justify an
investigation/removal of children. More recently, I've heard of cases
where children have been taken from the custody of their parents for
not having their children restrained, even though no accident or
injury occurred. Such are the problems with those laws. When the fine
is low, people don't tend to pay much attention to it. They behave
much as they would without them. Make the consequences draconian
(such as removal of kids from the home) and you'll get compliance, but
you have implemented a solution that's worse than the original
problem.

> Public health is like that.

Public health is not the only "public good" that needs to be
considered in these issues. From a pure public health perspective,
all handguns should be banned. But there are other considerations to
take into account.

> >But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
> >parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
> >spanking or homeschooling.
>
> I wouldn't know about the homeschooling -- certainly it can produce
> some outstanding students. Does it really attract such hostility?

Yes.

> >Currently, we still have such freedoms, but they are definitely being
> >attacked under the guise of "protecting the children".
>
> Sometimes legitimately. This is a thorny area.

Indeed it is. I think that there is a deep division in this country
regarding how some of us want to live our lives versus how others wish
us to behave. I don't know what the end result will be.

[CBI]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> (David Wright) wrote in message
> > Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> > line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> > and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> > favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> > just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> > dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> > a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.
>
> The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
> freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
> choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
> sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.

I think this is a valid point with some exceptions.

1) When you are making the decisions for someone else (like your child) I
think you should be held to a higher standard of rationality.

2) It is only valid where there are plausible choices to make. For example:
The decision to have one (or more) drink a night is likely to have social
and medical benefits. Therefore it is not unlikely that a rational person
could look at the situation and decide to have it. Therefore it should not
be illegal. One may argue that drinking to excess or drinking and driving
should be illegal but clearly not all alcohol is detrimental. I don't see
the rational argument against wearing a seatbelt or helmet or not
vaccinating against most of the diseases we currently vaccinate. I have
never seen anyone present a cogent argument for any of these that one may
increase the odds of an adverse event by avoiding them.

--
CBI, MD

[abacus]

"CBI" > wrote in message t>...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (David Wright) wrote in message
> > > Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> > > line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> > > and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> > > favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> > > just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> > > dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> > > a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.
> >
> > The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
> > freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
> > choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
> > sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.
>
> I think this is a valid point with some exceptions.
>
> 1) When you are making the decisions for someone else (like your child) I
> think you should be held to a higher standard of rationality.
>
> 2) It is only valid where there are plausible choices to make. For example:
> The decision to have one (or more) drink a night is likely to have social
> and medical benefits. Therefore it is not unlikely that a rational person
> could look at the situation and decide to have it. Therefore it should not
> be illegal. One may argue that drinking to excess or drinking and driving
> should be illegal but clearly not all alcohol is detrimental. I don't see
> the rational argument against wearing a seatbelt or helmet or not
> vaccinating against most of the diseases we currently vaccinate. I have
> never seen anyone present a cogent argument for any of these that one may
> increase the odds of an adverse event by avoiding them.

You mistake an argument against having laws regarding certain
behaviors, such as using seatbelts or drinking, as being the same as
an argument for or against the activity itself (i.e. using seatbelts,
drinking). They are not the same. I've been wearing a seatbelt since
they were made available - I can remember the first car my father
purchased that had them. Just because I used a seatbelt for decades
before it was required by law, doesn't mean that I agree with the law.

BTW, if you accept your argument, then tobacco should be illegal and
marijuana legal (at least by prescription). The latter has some
beneficial effects whereas the former does not.

[fred & michele]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...

> "fred & michele" > wrote in message
>...

> > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like tobacco,
> > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
burdened
> > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
probably
> > satisfies few.
>
> I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?

Yes, working for years with people who made decisions that society pays for
dearly (substance abusers/addicts) is a real eye opener. Examining the
monies budgeted for just some of the consequences of bad choices like we've
mentioned is staggering. The amazing costs -- which are not only about
treatment, but the $$ used to pick up the pieces of the lives they effect
(like feeding, housing, clothing their children) & the non-monetary costs
like the family strife such behavior commonly includes as part of the
package -- are very real. Unless we as a society simply decide that people
who make stupid decisions (as well as the families they're supposed to be
responsible to) are also "free" to bear the burdens those decisions entail,
there is a real reason for reasonable limits.

> > I used to believe that seat belt laws should be abolished until
presented
> > with facts like drivers secured in a vehicle increased the probablity
that
> > they could maintain *some* control of the auto in the event of an
> > accident --an ejected or unconscious driver certainly can't do much to
> > mitigate the circumstances or outcome of an MVA. The lives of other
> > motorists or pedestrians could well depend on a driver being in their
car
> > making the effort to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid a worse situation
> > than already presented with. Delaware was very slow in mandating seat
belt
> > laws. I was even slower in complying (<G>), until I fully understood a
> > decision I felt only effected me could actually cost someone else their
> > life.
>
> This is an argument I haven't heard before; I will ponder it.
> However, it would only apply to the driver, not any passengers.

Passengers flying about the vehicle during an MVA present a very real
hazard. Not to mention any person being thrown from a vehicle into the path
of another motorist, involving that vehicle & those in it in the accident as
well. Any paramedic/EMT can tell you the incredible impact a body being
hurled at high speed can cause.

>> Do the people footing the bills have a
> > say, or only those who run them up?

> The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.

We can refuse to provide foster care to the kids of those who make crummy
decisions. We can allow people to die in the streets of the illnesses
caused by bad choices & injuries sustained as a result of stupidity coupled
with unfettered freedom. We can create lists of people who insist upon
doing whatever they want & refuse to be of any assistance to them when their
choices bite them & their loved ones in the ass. But few of us could turn
our backs on a hungry kid abandoned by their parents or tell somebody's
husband "Sorry, your wife was stupid & didn't buckle up -- so now that she's
paralyzed, you'll need to figure out how to take care of her & pay the bills
for it. Don't ask for any help from the insurance co.or the gov't, 'cause
it's YOUR problem."

> > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
for
> > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
Or
> > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
>
> The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> what behaviors it is not?

It's quite obvious that smoking regulations are an attempt to control the
behavior & its outcome. It certainly doesn't cost $31.00 + for a carton of
Marlboros. Taxes, money mandated to be used for anti-smoking education by
recent court cases against the tobacco companies are just two compromises
between an outright ban on tobacco use & promoting it as an acceptable
behavior. In the case of obesity, regulating eating is much trickier. Any
food, even healthy stuff, can be misused & lead to being overweight -- & one
cannot decide to not eat at all, so we need to encourage moderation & common
sense as the only realistic way to go. It seems you assume regulation must
be in the form of restriction or punishment, but WRT eating & exercise, the
idea of *reward* makes far more sense. Tax credits for maintaining a
healthy weight/body fat percentage (verified just as many other deductions
require verification) -- deductions for the costs of health club
memberships (accompanied by documentation of attendance) -- proof of regular
check ups to spot any problems early on. There would be no "punishment" for
being fat, just as there is no "punishment" for throwing away one's receipts
that could be utilized as deductions. Those who go the extra mile to stay
healthy would be rewarded just as those willing to go to the trouble of
itemizing, saving receipts, & looking for ways to save on their taxes are.
Nobody's "punished" for renting their home, but there sure are rewards for
home ownership -- the pursuit of good health could be rewarded in the same
ways.

Here in DE, one can't smoke in any public buildings (including in what many
wouldn't believe possible to make smoke-free = BARS & NIGHTCLUBS!). Lots of
people bitched & moaned about their rights, many businesses claimed they'd
go under, & it was predicted the end of the world was near! Hardly. The
bars in our area have full parking lots like before. People still want to
go out dancing & socializing. One nearby country western tavern came up
with a clever solution to satisfy customers who simply "couldn't" go without
lighting up -- they actually purchased an old DelDOT bus, parked it outside
the bar, stocked it with plenty of ashtrays & put a banner on it that read
"smokin' bus". Anybody can go on that bus (weather's no problem) & smoke
up -- then go back into the smoke free bar. It's a compromise that
satisfies everyone, as well as the law.

> If you look at the Netherlands as an example of a society where use is
> not necessarily considered abuse and abuse is treated as a health
> problem, not criminal behavior, legalization seems a better approach
> with fewer ancillary problems than ours.

Use ISN'T abuse. Many people smoke pot regularly all their lives while
holding responsible jobs, paying their bills, & raising children without any
problems. They obviously are able to regulate themselves as to where & when
to use. Ditto for many moderate alcohol users. Heroin & cocaine are
different in the scheme of abuse & addiction -- with very high rates of
addiction & other health problems & little benefit to their use, it makes
sense to discourage their use. And while the Netherlands handles the
*criminalization* of substance use differently than the U.S., I would be
very surprised if the abuse/addiction surrounding heroin & cocaine didn't
impact the taxpayers there WRT paying for treatment, money for the
associated health issues, & taking care of the responsibilities neglected by
abusers/addicts.

> I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> think I spelled that right).
>
> The idea is that people choose the society they live in. That is,
> people who decide they want to be free to take certain risks can do
> so, but then their society is not obliged to pay for the consequences.

Our society frequently pays for the consequences of the freedom without a
care so many people practice. Most people would be hard pressed to stick
with the idea expressed above. And it doesn't address what should be done
WRT those who were directly effected by the stupid decisions of others. The
kids left parentless -- the mother faced with caring for a young adult son
or daughter left paralyzed because seatbelts were left unbuckled -- the
babies born to addicted mothers who aren't fit to have a dog let alone a
child in their care. These are consequences dumped on people who didn't
make dumb choices -- who pays for them? Let's face it, we have to.
Otherwise we are punishing people whose innocence doesn't merit it.

> Those who agree to live with more constraints get more security in
> terms of a safety net when adverse events occur.

> The only example I can think of in our society would be the laws for
> Covenant marriage that were proposed about 10(?) years ago. Covenant
> marriage was an optional type of marriage that was more binding than
> our current laws - i.e. the justifications to get a legal divorce were
> severely limited. I haven't heard anything about that in some time, so
> I don't know how that issue turned out.
>
> Anyway, interesting post ma'am. Thanks for the food for thought.

It's definitely a sticky web, isn't it? While repression of freedom is
something most reasonable people don't favor, giving folks unlimited freedom
WRT unwise decisions that society is often left paying the tab for isn't
exactly a great option either. It'll no doubt always require compromise, a
careful balancing of independent choice & the responsibility of the
individual -- & the burden on others for those choices.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.

[Jeff Utz]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jeff Utz" > wrote in message
>...
> > "abacus" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I'm sorry, I don't have time to compose a complete response to your
> > > thoughtful post. My work load has just increased dramatically, so I'm
> > > not as much time as previously to converse. However, I did want to
> > > make a few commments.
> > >
> > > "fred & michele" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like
tobacco,
> > > > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > > > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
> > burdened
> > > > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > > > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
> > probably
> > > > satisfies few.
> > >
> > > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> > > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
> >
> > I disagree. I mean, if left to my own devices, I would not pay taxes. I
> > would go 100 mph on the highway. Landlords would increase their rent
> > astronomically. Insiders at companies would sell stocks before they
announce
> > that they are going bankrupt.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Ah, I see you haven't studied that aspect of it at all. Still, I
> suppose I could have phrased it a bit better. Let me try again,
>
> I find the mathematical analysis put forward by those espousing the
> libertarian POV that free choice leads to the best overall outcome for
> society as a whole more convincing than any argument I have heard for
> supporting mandates and regulation of personal decisions like the ones
> we've been discussing.

What about people who are making choices without all the knowledge? I mean,
without any knowledge of whether vaccines work or not, why would one get the
vaccines? What about people who have poor knowledge of vaccines, like people
who read and believe the antivaccine web sites without realizing the
antivacs don't have a clue?

What about cases where the person can gain from everyone's losses? For
example, say I own land next to a nature preserve. Perhaps the best use of
the land for the population would be for me to donate the land to the nature
preserve. However, the best use of the land for my own benefit is putting up
a mini-mall with restaurants, gas station, food store, etc. Now, what you
expect me to do?

This is not an abstract concept. It has been faced over and over again when
one gains by using resources even the population at large is better off is
those resources are conserved. It is seen areas where people are best off
conserving water and not letting particular areas be farmland. Needless to
say, the people who are doing the farming would rather it be used for
farming.

There is another mathematical argument for mandates. There is a mathematical
puzzle called the "prisoner's dilemma." In the prisoner's dilemma, the
prisoner who squeals on other prisoners comes out ahead, but, on average,
prisoners come out ahead if no one squeals. The strategy that comes out on
top is the society (prisoners) mandating that no one squeal. If one squeals,
they squeal on him. Tit-for-tat. You can find out more about this in
Scientific American magazine.

Another example of mandates is paying highway and road taxes. If it were not
for this mandate to pay for taxes, who do you think would build and maintain
roads? I am sorry, but I would like to see this mathematical analysis. I
suspect that it is just fancy math that obfuscates the issue.

Jeff

[CBI]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?

The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making accurate
assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of people
making bad decisions they go right out the window.


..
>
> The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.

I have no problem with people assuming risks and then paying the price on
their own. When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
child who pays the price.


> > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
for
> > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
Or
> > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
>
> The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> what behaviors it is not?

I agree with you and that is why I find the arguments about hospital bills
and EMS etc to be weak in reagrds to seatbelt laws and helmets. There are
just too many other closely releated examples that we cannot legislate and
no way to distinguish them. I think one useful distinction is when your
decision directly affects other people. Not wearing yuor own seatbelt may
not affect others directly but failure to restrain or force the use of
helmets in your kids will directly affect them. Similarly, the decision not
to vaccinate has direct effects on the others around them.


> I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> think I spelled that right).

I once had a lawyer tell me that a good compromise leaves both sides a
little dissatisfied.

--
CBI

[CBI]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
>
> You mistake an argument against having laws regarding certain
> behaviors, such as using seatbelts or drinking, as being the same as
> an argument for or against the activity itself (i.e. using seatbelts,
> drinking). They are not the same. I've been wearing a seatbelt since
> they were made available - I can remember the first car my father
> purchased that had them. Just because I used a seatbelt for decades
> before it was required by law, doesn't mean that I agree with the law.

No, I am just saying that in any issue you must weight both sides. Sometimes
the argument for one side is weak but that for the other is even weaker. In
that case that prudent thing to do is to follow the less weak argument. I
think this applies to helmet and seatbelt laws in adults (but not kids).



> BTW, if you accept your argument, then tobacco should be illegal and
> marijuana legal (at least by prescription). The latter has some
> beneficial effects whereas the former does not.

Yes, I would accept that.

--
CBI, MD

[David Wright]

In article >,
abacus > wrote:
(David Wright) wrote in message
>> Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
>> line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
>> and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
>> favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
>> just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
>> dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
>> a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.
>
>The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
>freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
>choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
>sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.
>
>We could, for example, save thousands of lives by making tobacco and
>alcohol illegal. The argument to restrict freedom in order to save
>lives doesn't sway me much when you're talking about choices with
>direct consequences that effect only the individual making the choice.

Such choices are, however, quite rare, since anything measured in
lives does have an economic cost (medical expenses, insurance rates,
etc etc etc).

In any event, trying to get a complete model of costs is quite
difficult. Yes, if we made alcohol illegal, we'd probably save some
lives, because, for example, drinking did drop considerably during
Prohibition. However, a full accounting of the costs must also
include the societal costs of increased corruption, the growth of
organized crime, a certain contempt for the law, and so on.

We can, of course, do a similar analysis of the current drug laws to
try to see if their benefits (reduced drug consumption) outweigh their
costs (corruption, money to organized crime, and a truly enormous
increase in prison populations with the attendant costs, not to
mention the costs of crime committed by addicts to get the money to
pay the inflated costs of their drugs).

But the health effects, at least, are incurred by the person taking
the drug. Except for herd immunity -- you haven't addressed the
problems faced by those who cannot take vaccines or in whom the
vaccines don't work. If everyone else is vaccinated, there is little
chance of an epidemic starting, since there are too few vectors.

>In my opinion seat belt laws, helmet laws, and most drug laws should
>be abolished.

I'd keep antibiotics under prescription, though. That's a real public
health issue.

>I consider the lives lost to be part of the price of the freedom and
>those who die to be those who chose to take that risk in the same way
>that many of our forefathers chose to risk their lives in battle for
>our freedoms. The line is crossed when others are endangered, as for
>example to drink and drive. Then they are risking not just their own
>health and life, but that of others who have not voluntary accepted
>the risk.

Yep. And if the results were "success or death," it wouldn't be quite
so bad -- I worry about the "lifelong expensive care" for the free
spirit who sailed off his motorcycle at 60 and hit a tree, but,
unfortunately for him, didn't *quite* die.

>> >Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
>> >children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
>> >parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
>> >suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
>> >an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
>> >have been prevented by vaccinateion.
>>
>> Yep. I'm not blind to the consequences here. Put in seat belt laws
>> and you'll probably be able to find some weird case of a guy who would
>> have lived except that he got trapped by his seat belt and couldn't
>> get out. Which still doesn't mean that in most cases, he wouldn't
>> have been better off wearing the belt. Make vaccination mandatory and
>> you'll probably see some bad vaccine reactions that would not have
>> happened if the vaccine had been optional. But make it optional and
>> you'll see disease and death that would have otherwise been avoided.
>
>We'll just have to disagree here. I prefer to allow people to make
>the choice for themselves as to which risks they prefer to take than
>have society impose that choice upon them. Which risk is smaller is
>less a consideration than who has the right to make that choice - my
>opinion is that its the individual rather the government.

Rights are a tricky subject too, since they inevitably collide and
then you have to figure out which one has priority.

I don't really expect to convince you here, by the way. I just want
to be clear that you're not convincing me, either. I have already
heard these arguments.

>Car restraints save lives, no question about that. But a few years
>ago, I sat in on an public discussion with local CPS officials on what
>should constitute abuse and neglect. It was seriously discussed
>whether a call regarding such a violation should justify an
>investigation/removal of children.

That's the problem -- you get these insane overreactions and policies
with no exceptions. The same thing applies in the criminal justice
system these days with judges having no freedom to impose lower
sentences in unusual cases.

>> Public health is like that.
>
>Public health is not the only "public good" that needs to be
>considered in these issues. From a pure public health perspective,
>all handguns should be banned. But there are other considerations to
>take into account.

Well, it's unhealthy to be killed by an intruder, also. Or so it
seems to me. (I'm not real big on most gun laws, and they're so
insanely applied and so impractical at this point that it hardly seems
worth it. By the way, my politics are impossible to classify under
any of the conventional labels. I think libertarians are living in
the sort of fantasy world exemplified by the novel "The Probability
Broach.")

-- 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]

"CBI" > wrote:


>I agree with you and that is why I find the arguments about hospital bills
>and EMS etc to be weak in reagrds to seatbelt laws and helmets. There are
>just too many other closely releated examples that we cannot legislate and
>no way to distinguish them. I think one useful distinction is when your
>decision directly affects other people. Not wearing yuor own seatbelt may
>not affect others directly

Yes, it does. It makes my insurance rates go up because of the
injury claims of the helmet-less and unbelted. It makes my taxes
go up because their medical bills often end up bieng covere dby
public funds. If they want to have the "freedom" to endanger
themselves, they should also declare their freedom from being
supported by the rest of us.

And I stopped to give first aid to someone who was "thrown clear"
of an accident ... clear through the windshield of another
vehicle, causing that vehicle to crash and spewing blood and
brains all over the passengers.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré

[abacus]

"CBI" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
>
> The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making accurate
> assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of people
> making bad decisions they go right out the window.

Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
understand it.

> > The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> > voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> > having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> > this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.
>
> I have no problem with people assuming risks and then paying the price on
> their own. When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> child who pays the price.

True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
individual child?

> > > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
> for
> > > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
> Or
> > > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
> >
> > The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> > applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> > eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> > door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> > because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> > obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> > between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> > what behaviors it is not?
>
> I agree with you and that is why I find the arguments about hospital bills
> and EMS etc to be weak in reagrds to seatbelt laws and helmets. There are
> just too many other closely releated examples that we cannot legislate and
> no way to distinguish them. I think one useful distinction is when your
> decision directly affects other people. Not wearing yuor own seatbelt may
> not affect others directly but failure to restrain or force the use of
> helmets in your kids will directly affect them. Similarly, the decision not
> to vaccinate has direct effects on the others around them.

> > I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> > going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> > pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> > live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> > think I spelled that right).
>
> I once had a lawyer tell me that a good compromise leaves both sides a
> little dissatisfied.

[abacus]

"fred & michele" > wrote in message >...
> "abacus" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > "fred & michele" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like tobacco,
> > > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
> burdened
> > > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
> probably
> > > satisfies few.
> >
> > I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> > choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> > the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> > achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> > for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
>
> Yes, working for years with people who made decisions that society pays for
> dearly (substance abusers/addicts) is a real eye opener.

I gather the answer is actually no. I'm was referring to studying the
mathematical models economists have constructed. Your experience,
while quite informative, is not the same thing at all.

> Examining the
> monies budgeted for just some of the consequences of bad choices like we've
> mentioned is staggering. The amazing costs -- which are not only about
> treatment, but the $$ used to pick up the pieces of the lives they effect
> (like feeding, housing, clothing their children) & the non-monetary costs
> like the family strife such behavior commonly includes as part of the
> package -- are very real. Unless we as a society simply decide that people
> who make stupid decisions (as well as the families they're supposed to be
> responsible to) are also "free" to bear the burdens those decisions entail,
> there is a real reason for reasonable limits.

Yes, the models I'm referring to can and do incorporate the costs you
are describing.

> > > I used to believe that seat belt laws should be abolished until
> presented
> > > with facts like drivers secured in a vehicle increased the probablity
> that
> > > they could maintain *some* control of the auto in the event of an
> > > accident --an ejected or unconscious driver certainly can't do much to
> > > mitigate the circumstances or outcome of an MVA. The lives of other
> > > motorists or pedestrians could well depend on a driver being in their
> car
> > > making the effort to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid a worse situation
> > > than already presented with. Delaware was very slow in mandating seat
> belt
> > > laws. I was even slower in complying (<G>), until I fully understood a
> > > decision I felt only effected me could actually cost someone else their
> > > life.
> >
> > This is an argument I haven't heard before; I will ponder it.
> > However, it would only apply to the driver, not any passengers.
>
> Passengers flying about the vehicle during an MVA present a very real
> hazard. Not to mention any person being thrown from a vehicle into the path
> of another motorist, involving that vehicle & those in it in the accident as
> well. Any paramedic/EMT can tell you the incredible impact a body being
> hurled at high speed can cause.

I'll continue to reflect on the argument. However, it seems to me to
be a bit of a stretch to use this argument as a justification for seat
belt laws. The usual justification is that it is to protect the
individual wearing the seat belt.

> >> Do the people footing the bills have a
> > > say, or only those who run them up?
>
> > The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> > voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> > having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> > this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.
>
> We can refuse to provide foster care to the kids of those who make crummy
> decisions. We can allow people to die in the streets of the illnesses
> caused by bad choices & injuries sustained as a result of stupidity coupled
> with unfettered freedom. We can create lists of people who insist upon
> doing whatever they want & refuse to be of any assistance to them when their
> choices bite them & their loved ones in the ass. But few of us could turn
> our backs on a hungry kid abandoned by their parents or tell somebody's
> husband "Sorry, your wife was stupid & didn't buckle up -- so now that she's
> paralyzed, you'll need to figure out how to take care of her & pay the bills
> for it. Don't ask for any help from the insurance co.or the gov't, 'cause
> it's YOUR problem."

Yes, that's another option for society to take. In fact, it is the
option usually advocated by strict libertarians. I am not a strict
libertarian. However, they have a valid point in that whenever
society decides to take up the slack for those that suffer as a result
of poor choices, the cost of those choices goes down for the
individual and more people will decide to abrogate their personal
responsibilities as a result. The economic models on this point are
quite illuminating.

> > > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
> for
> > > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
> Or
> > > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
> >
> > The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> > applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> > eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> > door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> > because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> > obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> > between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> > what behaviors it is not?
>
> It's quite obvious that smoking regulations are an attempt to control the
> behavior & its outcome. It certainly doesn't cost $31.00 + for a carton of
> Marlboros. Taxes, money mandated to be used for anti-smoking education by
> recent court cases against the tobacco companies are just two compromises
> between an outright ban on tobacco use & promoting it as an acceptable
> behavior. In the case of obesity, regulating eating is much trickier. Any
> food, even healthy stuff, can be misused & lead to being overweight -- & one
> cannot decide to not eat at all, so we need to encourage moderation & common
> sense as the only realistic way to go. It seems you assume regulation must
> be in the form of restriction or punishment, but WRT eating & exercise, the
> idea of *reward* makes far more sense. Tax credits for maintaining a
> healthy weight/body fat percentage (verified just as many other deductions
> require verification) -- deductions for the costs of health club
> memberships (accompanied by documentation of attendance) -- proof of regular
> check ups to spot any problems early on. There would be no "punishment" for
> being fat, just as there is no "punishment" for throwing away one's receipts
> that could be utilized as deductions. Those who go the extra mile to stay
> healthy would be rewarded just as those willing to go to the trouble of
> itemizing, saving receipts, & looking for ways to save on their taxes are.
> Nobody's "punished" for renting their home, but there sure are rewards for
> home ownership -- the pursuit of good health could be rewarded in the same
> ways.
>
> Here in DE, one can't smoke in any public buildings (including in what many
> wouldn't believe possible to make smoke-free = BARS & NIGHTCLUBS!). Lots of
> people bitched & moaned about their rights, many businesses claimed they'd
> go under, & it was predicted the end of the world was near! Hardly. The
> bars in our area have full parking lots like before. People still want to
> go out dancing & socializing. One nearby country western tavern came up
> with a clever solution to satisfy customers who simply "couldn't" go without
> lighting up -- they actually purchased an old DelDOT bus, parked it outside
> the bar, stocked it with plenty of ashtrays & put a banner on it that read
> "smokin' bus". Anybody can go on that bus (weather's no problem) & smoke
> up -- then go back into the smoke free bar. It's a compromise that
> satisfies everyone, as well as the law.

Some interesting food for thought here. You are right, I have been
generally thinking of the regulation/punishment aspect rather than
rewarding good behavior. Thanks for the new ideas.

> > If you look at the Netherlands as an example of a society where use is
> > not necessarily considered abuse and abuse is treated as a health
> > problem, not criminal behavior, legalization seems a better approach
> > with fewer ancillary problems than ours.
>
> Use ISN'T abuse. Many people smoke pot regularly all their lives while
> holding responsible jobs, paying their bills, & raising children without any
> problems. They obviously are able to regulate themselves as to where & when
> to use. Ditto for many moderate alcohol users. Heroin & cocaine are
> different in the scheme of abuse & addiction -- with very high rates of
> addiction & other health problems & little benefit to their use, it makes
> sense to discourage their use. And while the Netherlands handles the
> *criminalization* of substance use differently than the U.S., I would be
> very surprised if the abuse/addiction surrounding heroin & cocaine didn't
> impact the taxpayers there WRT paying for treatment, money for the
> associated health issues, & taking care of the responsibilities neglected by
> abusers/addicts.

I'm certain it does, but I think overall the expense is considerably
less particularly since they don't have the prison/crime expenses that
we do that are a result of our drug laws.

> > I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> > going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> > pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> > live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> > think I spelled that right).
> >
> > The idea is that people choose the society they live in. That is,
> > people who decide they want to be free to take certain risks can do
> > so, but then their society is not obliged to pay for the consequences.
>
> Our society frequently pays for the consequences of the freedom without a
> care so many people practice. Most people would be hard pressed to stick
> with the idea expressed above. And it doesn't address what should be done
> WRT those who were directly effected by the stupid decisions of others. The
> kids left parentless -- the mother faced with caring for a young adult son
> or daughter left paralyzed because seatbelts were left unbuckled -- the
> babies born to addicted mothers who aren't fit to have a dog let alone a
> child in their care. These are consequences dumped on people who didn't
> make dumb choices -- who pays for them? Let's face it, we have to.
> Otherwise we are punishing people whose innocence doesn't merit it.

"We" aren't punishing them at all. As a society, we simply decide
what support "we" are willing to provide for those in need. The
person who's poor choice impacted their life is the one who was
*punishing* them if, indeed, punishment is the correct term. I don't
think it qualifies as *punishment* anymore than a parent who died of
cancer is a *punishment* on the child.

> > Those who agree to live with more constraints get more security in
> > terms of a safety net when adverse events occur.
>
> > The only example I can think of in our society would be the laws for
> > Covenant marriage that were proposed about 10(?) years ago. Covenant
> > marriage was an optional type of marriage that was more binding than
> > our current laws - i.e. the justifications to get a legal divorce were
> > severely limited. I haven't heard anything about that in some time, so
> > I don't know how that issue turned out.
> >
> > Anyway, interesting post ma'am. Thanks for the food for thought.
>
> It's definitely a sticky web, isn't it? While repression of freedom is
> something most reasonable people don't favor, giving folks unlimited freedom
> WRT unwise decisions that society is often left paying the tab for isn't
> exactly a great option either. It'll no doubt always require compromise, a
> careful balancing of independent choice & the responsibility of the
> individual -- & the burden on others for those choices.

Indeed, it is a sticky web. But I have given up on the politicans
doing anything other than getting our society emeshed in it to the
point of no return. If anyone will be working out reasonable
compromises, I think it will be folks like you and I.

Regards.

[Roger Schlafly]

"abacus" > wrote
> Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
> understand it.

No surprise -- CBI is an innumerate.

> > When a parent is making the decision for the child it is the
> > child who pays the price.
> True. But there are risks involved with every choice. When the
> government makes the decision, it is still the child who pays the
> price. Who is more likely to make better decisions about an
> individual child?

The parents. Physicians sometimes have trouble with the concept
because they are trained in a very authoritarian manner.