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

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

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when

he

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead, point out that the pro-
vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept this gem a secret....

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

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

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

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...
From: "Jeff" [email hidden]
Date: 2/24/2004 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when

he

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead, point out that the pro-
vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept this gem a secret....

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

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

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

Jeff

Touche.

A repost. IT IS HONEST TO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST

From: Tsu Dho Nimh ([email hidden]) Subject: Re: How Many Vaccines & At what Age? View:
Complete Thread (80 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative Date: 2002-06-18
07:20:41 PST

(Jan) said:

1. That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these
decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.> (could this possible have a bearing
on HOW they vote,,,,,TDN??)

***FYI - people tend to invest in industries they know about. It's not surprising that medical
people invest in medical stocks rather than Schlumberger or AOL-Time Warner. ****

The fastest way to send the stock of a company into the toilet is to release a product that doesn't
work, or a product that is dangerous when used as prescribed. I'm sure any major shareholder (and
you have no evidence that anyone owns a significant amount of stock) knows this.

It's common in the semiconductor industry for engineers to own stock in their companies, and it's
also common for those engineers to be on standards boards making decisions about standards that
affect the entire industry, including consumers and the competition. Is this wrong too?

Quoted message said:

***3. That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the
rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.

( Is this honest, TDN??)****

****Yes, it's honest.****

They informed the comittee of the potential conflict of interest before voting. Dishonest would
have been concealing their interest in the product before voting on its fate.

How about those members that own stock in the *competitors* of the product under discussion (in
this instance, the makers of IV fluids used to treat rotavirus dehydration, or stock in the
hospitals the infants are treated in)? Should they recuse themselves because they stand to profit
from suppressing a product? Conflict of interest works both ways.

Quoted message said:

4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting,
two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary
voting members who all voted to license the product. ( do you wonder why, TDN??)

Geee ... board members missing a meeting. How suspicious.

Because the evidence it worked was pretty compelling. And the evidence it works is still
compelling. Compelling enough that India is beginning production soon because they lose thousands
of infants each year to rotavirus.

Quoted message said:

5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a
year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every
member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. (Same questions, TDN)

Has any member of the comittee ever CONCEALED their affiliation or stock holdings?

How about those members that own stock in the competitors of the product under discussion? Should
they recuse themselves because they stand to profit from suppressing a product?

Who would be left to vote?

Quoted message said:

6. (snip) no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the

childhood

Quoted message said:

immunization schedule.

Are you sure that EVERY member of the CDC advisory comittee is childless? Last I looked, celibacy
was not a prerequisite.

Quoted message said:

The FDA’s committee only has one public member.
(Should parents be a part of this commitee, TDN??)

Parents are a part of the committee ... and part of the
research teams too. Just not "parents" as you define them.

When I worked in hospitals that did field trials for various pharmaceutical and medical device
manufacturers, one of the questions we were asked was: "If your ____ was in hospital, and you knew
this ____ was going to be used during their care, how would you feel about it?"

Quoted message said:

These are just a few of the problems we found. Specific examples of this include:

Dr. John Modlin—He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in
February 1998. He participated in the FDA’s committee

as

Quoted message said:

well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines,

valued

Quoted message said:

at $26,000.

That's 500 or so shares, worth $26,000 in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares
and trades 5-7 million shares a day. I bet he owns/ed similar amounts of the competitors of
Merck as well.

Quoted message said:

He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board. Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the
Rotavirus working group. He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s
rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for
Children program. It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his
vaccine manufacturer stock. (WHY do you suppose he voted YES to all eight, TDN??)

Because he thought it was a good idea. Preventing 50,000 or more infants from hospitalizations and
a 50-100 deaths each year does sound like a good idea. I've seen the initial reports: I would have
voted the same way.

Quoted message said:

At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a
rotavirus vaccine

I found several ... and he is not in a position to profit personally from the patents, despite
having his name on the paperwork. It appears that the Children's Hospital and the Wistar Institute
are the actual owners ... a children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical
research facility.

www.chop.edu www.wistar.upenn.edu/about_wistar/history.html

5,750,109 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy & Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

5,626,851 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

6,113,910 Assignee: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA); The Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA)

6,290,968 Assignee: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA); Wistar Institute of
Anatomy and Biology (Philadelphia, PA)

Quoted message said:

and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine.

Merck is GIVING him grant money to develop the vaccine when the owners of the vaccine patent are a
children's charity hospital and the nation's first independent medical research facility? What
shocking news!

Quoted message said:

He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and
teach doctors that vaccines are safe. Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and
voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus
vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program. ( piad by pharmaceurical industry,, does this
tell you anything, TDN??)

I've worked on projects where my salary came from a pharmaceutical company. No more shocking than
Ford paying a racecar driver to make public appearances, or Revlon paying a supermodel.

Quoted message said:

Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in
Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver. (WHY was she granted a full waiver,
TDN??)

That's about 400 shares ... in a company that has $120 BILLION in outstanding shares and trades
5-7 million shares a day. Yes, she's a major stockholder, really major.

And how much stock in Merck's competitors did she own? How much stock in companies that make IV
fluids, for example.

Look at the math: which company makes more money off a child? the one that sells $5 worth of
vaccine or the one that sells $500+ in IV fluids, plus $$$ in testing reagents for every case of
rotavirus that is admitted. If you want conflict of interest, look at who holds stock in
Pedialyte!

Quoted message said:

Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on behalf of the American
Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA’s committee, has extensive ties to
the pharmaceutical industry, including having solicited and received start up funds from
industry for his Vaccine Center.

As

Quoted message said:

a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the opinions of the
organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts

to

Quoted message said:

be offering his personal opinion as well. ( Any question for this, TDN??)

OK ... Halsey has a personal opinion. We all do. And he's apparently clearly identifying which hat
he's wearing when he speaks (according to the transcripts).

Quoted message said:

Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000

of

Quoted message said:

stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer. He also is a paid member of the

board

Quoted message said:

of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of stock.

Quoted message said:

This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was granted.

Quoted message said:

To the FDA’s credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because

he

Quoted message said:

holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.

I checked the USPTO database, and Greengberg does NOT appear as the owner of a patent on any
rotavirus *vaccine*. He DID patent a couple of methods for selecting rotavirus for vaccine
production, but he is not in a position to profit from them.

Note that the OWNER of both of the patents is YOU! Yes, Jan, YOU as a citizen of the USA are the
part-owner of a patent for a process used in vaccine production! How does that make you feel to
know you now have a vested interest in vaccines that is as great as that of the doctors you have
been griping about?

4,571,385 Genetic reassortment of rotaviruses for production of vaccines and vaccine precursors
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health (Washington, DC)

4,341,870 Cultivatable human rotavirus type 2 Assignee: The United States of America as represented
by the Secretary of the Department of Health (Washington, DC)

Quoted message said:

( well, well, why was he excluded, TDN??)

I haven't a clue. Was he "excluded" or did he recuse himself?

Quoted message said:

How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work

of

Quoted message said:

the CDC advisory committee is done in “working groups” that meet behind closed doors, out of
the public eye?

I personally am quite confident.

Does the public have enough "eyes"? And is the public ready for the sight of "vigorous
participation". Working groups can get vehement as they discuss issues, and the words "hammered
out a conclusion" are close to literal sometimes.

Quoted message said:

Members who can’t vote in the full committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work
on the same issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny.

Peer scrutiny is much more effective. The general public doesn't know enough about the technology
or the issues to know when someone is blowing smoke and playing to the audience. Take away the
audience and you have to impress your fellow scientists with hard facts.

Quoted message said:

I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who participated in the working
group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus
vaccines.

(see anything appalling there, TDN??)

No. You yourself are one of the owners of patents on rotavirus vaccine.

Quoted message said:

How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug Administration when the
chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of
vaccines?

( can you answer this, TDN??)

How much stock? And in which companies? And are the companies competitors?

Quoted message said:

How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so
few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted.

If you got rid of everyone who had ever worked for, recieved grant money from, or held stock in a
pharmaceutical company ... the talent pool would be damned slim. And there are truly few American
experts in any field.

Quoted message said:

It almost appears that there is a “old boys network” of

Note the weasel words: "almost appears"

Quoted message said:

Some of these individuals serve for more than four years. We found one instance where an individual
served for sixteen years continually on the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this
country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years?

Maybe of the 700,000 physicians they were among the top dozen or so with the background to do the
job. I'd hate to have the average family care physician sitting on a board about vaccione
technology or cardiac drugs ... they didn't get enough classes in that area.

Maybe no one else wanted the job? Committee work takes a lot of time and effort. How many of the
700,000 physicians can take hours a day to read through all the reports. Committee members tend to
be high-ranking professors, or senior staff in institutions and it's part of their job to read
this stuff.

Quoted message said:

It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services

has

Quoted message said:

become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on conflicts of interest and
committee management. If the law is too loose, we need to change it. If the agencies aren’t doing
their job, they need to be held accountable. That’s the purpose of this hearing, to try to
determine what needs to be done.

(Is the law to loose, TEN??)

I don't think so. This author is throwing out a lot of misleading factoids with nothing concrete
to back up the speculations. Has anyone found a smoking gun memo? Is there a pattern of voting
that indicates the various committees are placing financial rewards above their scientific
integrity?

Quoted message said:

Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to self-interest than
other people?

There are various kinds of "self-interest", and the reputation for doing good research counts way
more for most scientists than money. They are driven to succeed, but their idea of success is not
the same as the typical American consumer's idea.

Quoted message said:

(please answer this, TDN!)

Can you name scientists that REALLY sold out who were not scorned by their peers for fudging
the research?

Quoted message said:

Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of vaccine development and
implementation is essential. The Department of Health and

Human

Quoted message said:

Services has a responsibility to the American public to ensure the integrity

of

Quoted message said:

this process by working diligently to appoint individuals that are totally without financial ties
to the vaccine industry to serve on these and all vaccine-related panels.

Interesting ... if total lack of financial ties to industry is important on these comittees, why
is it not equally important that politicians be without financial ties to ALL industries. After
all, they make laws that mandate what industries can and can't do. What industries contribute to
Burton's campaign funds?

Quoted message said:

(is intregrity important, TDN??)

Yes, and it's sadly lacking when politicians accept money form the very industries they write
laws about.

Quoted message said:

No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding vaccines that may be
mandated for use should be participating in the

discussion

Quoted message said:

or policy making for vaccines.

May I remind you that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, including you, are the assigned owners of many patents
having to do with vaccines. They stand to profit form any income from licensing the technology.

Quoted message said:

polluted and the public trust has been violated. I intend to find out if the individuals who have
made these recommendations that effect every child in

this

Quoted message said:

country and around the world, stood to gain financially and professionally

from

Quoted message said:

the decisions of the committees they served on.

Well, he says he intends to find out ... what has he managed to discover? Where are the smoking
guns and the secret bank accounts?

Tsu Dho Nimh

--

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest

when

Quoted message said:

he

Quoted message said:

produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Capitalist.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

instead,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

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

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

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead, point out that the pro-
vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept this gem a secret....

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

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

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

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

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

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

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]>

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest

when he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

instead,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ucsusa.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

(abacus) said:

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

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

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the Lancet article suggested,
that specific article would not have been accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain
credulity to accept that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of

interest when he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

instead,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

kept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this gem a secret....

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Not to my knowledge. (LOL)

Then there is a

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

ucsusa.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

Interesting...thanks!

abacus said:

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

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?

No, it is that this while time, while writing and debating the issue (often in forums that require
this type of disclosure), he has never mentioned it.

Mark Probert-February 25 said:

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for

the initial

Quoted message said:

study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.

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

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

--
CBI, MD

[email hidden] (abacus) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

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

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

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead, point out that the
pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept this gem a secret....

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

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?

No

Quoted message said:

Do you expect him to do it for free?

No

Quoted message said:

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

No

Quoted message said:

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

No

Quoted message said:

Was he hiding the source of his funding?

YES

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

and it would make his results suspect,

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

Quoted message said:

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

Why?

Quoted message said:

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Why does this matter?

Quoted message said:

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

DUH.

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

So, who makes the policy?

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Why?

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Back to the old tricks?

js

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

Quoted message said:

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of

interest when he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

instead,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

kept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this gem a secret....

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

The fact that he received such

Quoted message said:

funding should have been disclosed alongside *both* studies, although it is certainly less damning
if the non-attorney-funded study took place first.

A fair assessment.

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Well, those are well respected sources.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Not to my knowledge. (LOL)

Small miracles.

Quoted message said:

Then there is a

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

ucsusa.orgindex.htmlOpen ↗

Interesting...thanks!

"CBI" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Probert-February 25 said:

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for

the initial

Quoted message said:

study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.

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

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

Using the anti-vac line, just follow the money...and I was confident that one day it would come out.
He was just too attached to his theory for any other conclusion to make sense.

JG said:

Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a

loooong way to

Quoted message said:

go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees

realized by

Quoted message said:

James Cherry:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

"Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the

University of

Quoted message said:

California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized

pertussis expert who

Quoted message said:

has been a leader on advisory committees that help frame

immunization

Quoted message said:

policy for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for

Disease

Quoted message said:

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

physicians are

Quoted message said:

aware that pertussis occasionally produces severe

reactions and that

Quoted message said:

these may be associated with permanent sequellae

[complications

Quoted message said:

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

Cherry had

Quoted message said:

changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the

American Medical

Quoted message said:

Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis

vaccine was

Quoted message said:

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

about

Quoted message said:

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

from Lederle.

Quoted message said:

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

for

Quoted message said:

pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA

received

Quoted message said:

$654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research.

Additionally, drug

Quoted message said:

manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his

testimony as an

Quoted message said:

expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the

companies."

Quoted message said:

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

article is

Quoted message said:

available at

mindspring.commoney.txtOpen ↗ and

Quoted message said:

whale.tomoney mag.htmlOpen ↗.)

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

--
CBI, MD

"Jonathan Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (abacus) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark

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

thisislondon.co.uk9305535Open ↗

[...]

Quoted message said:

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

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

[...]

Quoted message said:

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

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

[...]

Quoted message said:

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

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

[...]

Kathy Cole <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(abacus) said:

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

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

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the Lancet article suggested,
that specific article would not have been accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain
credulity to accept that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.

If this is the case, then I agree. It doesn't just strain credulity, it breaks it. Further, if he is
sincere in that claim, that he didn't realize he needed to do so, that just makes his credibility as
a legimate researcher even more suspect.

[email hidden] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (abacus) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Why?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Back to the old tricks?

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

"CBI" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JG said:

Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a

loooong way to

Quoted message said:

go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees

realized by

Quoted message said:

James Cherry:

Quoted message said:

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

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

[...]

Quoted message said:

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

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

Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with

Quoted message said:

a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner that suggests he is seeking to
maximize publicity?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the

University of

Quoted message said:

California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized

pertussis expert who

Quoted message said:

has been a leader on advisory committees that help frame

immunization

Quoted message said:

policy for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for

Disease

Quoted message said:

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

physicians are

Quoted message said:

aware that pertussis occasionally produces severe

reactions and that

Quoted message said:

these may be associated with permanent sequellae

[complications

Quoted message said:

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

Cherry had

Quoted message said:

changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the

American Medical

Quoted message said:

Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis

vaccine was

Quoted message said:

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

about

Quoted message said:

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

from Lederle.

Quoted message said:

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

for

Quoted message said:

pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA

received

Quoted message said:

$654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research.

Additionally, drug

Quoted message said:

manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his

testimony as an

Quoted message said:

expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the

companies."

Quoted message said:

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

article is

Quoted message said:

available at

mindspring.commoney.txtOpen ↗ and

Quoted message said:

whale.tomoney mag.htmlOpen ↗.)

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

--
CBI, MD

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kathy Cole <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(abacus) said:

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

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

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the Lancet article suggested,
that specific article would not have been accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain
credulity to accept that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.

If this is the case, then I agree. It doesn't just strain credulity, it breaks it. Further, if he
is sincere in that claim, that he didn't realize he needed to do so, that just makes his
credibility as a legimate researcher even more suspect.

Agreed. Wakefield is in a no-win scenario, as there is no spin that he can use to retain
credibility. Remember, his supporter have always used the pro-vaccine supporters financial ties to
discredit them.

[email hidden] (abacus) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (abacus) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Mitigate - defined as "To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate" What
is "completely mitigate"?

Disclosure allows the USER of the information to understand the context in which the data were
derived and the conclusions made. Hence, the EFFECT of the potential conflict is mitigated. The
disclosure makes the provider accountable and the user aware. That's what science is all about -
accountability and transparency.

You keep arguing that the only information worth considering is one in which no potential conflicts
exist. Guess what - there is no such case. That doesn't mean that the data aren't actionable. If one
is informed of the potential conflicts that may exist, and one is informed of the methods and
statistics used to collect and analyze the data, then one can make an informed decision about the
quality of the data and the veracity of the conclusions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Why?

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

You mean to tell me that these experienced thought leaders in the medical community can't make
scientifically valid assessments of technologies? And you know this because nine of the ten actually
DO the science and as part of DOING the science, they rely on funding from a variety of sources
INCLUDING government and private industry?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Back to the old tricks?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It borders on a personal attack, but no matter.

You did the same thing with Crossens book, Abacus. You proposed that it was evidence of one thing
when in truth it wasn't that at all. In the case of the report referenced above, what you proport it
to be, it is not.

Quoted message said:

ile I do enjoy vigorous debate about many varied subjects, I'm afraid that I have not the time or
inclination to indulge my taste for a lengthy discussion right now. I'll pop in again when I get
the chace.

Honestly, I don't care if or when. You are hardly a worthy adversary.

js