Immunization Controversy Archives

conflict of interest in Vaccines

[ Immunization Controversy Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

conflict of interest in Vaccines

Posted by Pete R on September 05, 2001 at 13:15:46:

Hello All
This article I'm sure is of interest to Dr. Stoll.
Regards.
Pete Reinhard
________________________________________________

by Phyllis Schlafly

September 5, 2001

"Follow the money on vaccines"

It isn't often that a governor vetoes a bill that was passed
unanimously by both Houses of the State Legislature. It
reminds us of the old saying of the mother, watching her
son drill for the first time with the troops: "Everybody's out
of step except my son Jim." This time the one who is out
of step is George, as in Gov. George Ryan of Illinois. He
vetoed Senate Bill 1304, entitled "An Act Concerning
Immunizations."

This bill would have provided that a person is ineligible to
serve on the Illinois Immunization Advisory Committee if
the person or his spouse is an officer, employee, or agent
of, or has any ownership or other financial interest in a
pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines. It
also would have prohibited committee members or their
spouses from soliciting or accepting anything of value or
any other economic benefit from a pharmaceutical
company that manufacturers or produces vaccines unless
it is offered and available generally to licensed physicians
or the public.

That sounds like an excellent rule and we wonder why it
hasn't always been the law. Those who officially advise
government agencies whether or not to force Americans
to submit to vaccines should not be on the payroll of the
corporations that profit from the government mandates.

Ryan's veto message states that "Senate Bill 1304 would
severely limit the number of pediatric disease specialists
and pediatric physicians in general, who would be eligible
to serve on the Immunization Advisory Committee." This
amazing statement indicates that it's difficult to find
anyone to advise making vaccines mandatory other than
those who are paid in some way by the corporations
selling the vaccines.

This conflict of interest was confirmed by an emotional
outburst against S.1304 from one of the members of the
Illinois Immunization Advisory Committee at its meeting
on July 12, 2001. He said, "No infectious disease
specialist will be able to serve on this committee! We all
take money from pharmaceutical companies."

Ryan's veto message acknowledged that Illinois depends
on vaccine company contractors for its vaccine
policy-making. Here is what Ryan wrote:

"Many physicians with expertise in the field of immunizations
and infectious disease have contractual relationships with
pharmaceutical companies with regards to speaking engagements.
Also, many medical schools and academic centers employ
infectious disease specialists that perform research funded by
the pharmaceutical industry."

So that's how the racket works! "Experts" who are being paid
by the vaccine manufacturers have an official pipeline through
which they "advise" the state government authorities to mandate
vaccines. This incestuous relationship between the
pharmaceuticals and governmental bodies is not unique to Illinois.
A hearing before the U.S. House Committee on Government
Reform on June 14, 2000, produced evidence that similar conflicts
of interest are common practice for the federal advisory
committees: the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological
Products Advisory Committee and the CDC's Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices.

Most children entering public school today have been forced to
take up to 33 immunizations and more and more vaccines are in
line for government mandates despite widespread controversy
over their efficacy and their side effects.

The hepatitis B vaccine is widely administered to newborns
while still in the hospital, even though there is no scientific
evidence to justify it before the age when the child is subject to
risk factors, such as sexual promiscuity or sharing dirty needles.
Hepatitis B immunizations have been associated with 53 deaths
and 828 serious injuries, but the yearly incidence of the hepatitis
B disease itself is only 191 among the 38 million children younger
than 10, according to a letter recently published in the Journal of
the American Medical Association.

Furthermore, the Asian Liver Center at Stanford University recently
reported that more than half of the total hepatitis B cases in the
United States are among Asian-Americans. The rate is 70 times
greater for Asians than for whites or Hispanics, and 14 times greater
than for blacks.

Another letter in JAMA described the benefits to newborn hepatitis B
immunization: (1) It is too confusing to just vaccinate those who
need it; (2) there are some (very rare) cases of young kids at risk;
(3) it gets all the kids on the vaccine schedule right away; and
(4) it is easier to get to babies than adolescents. You don't need to be an
"expert" to understand that those are mighty poor reasons to vaccinate
all newborns.

It looks like the manufacturers have figured out that they can't make big
money selling their hepatitis B vaccine only to those at risk for the
disease, so they have managed to get the vaccine administered
routinely to all newborns. Vaccine advisory committees should
not be beholden to the drug makers.

2001 Copley News Service



the more you know, the scarier it is....

Posted by LisaT on September 06, 2001 at 02:03:40:

In Reply to: conflict of interest in Vaccines posted by Pete R on September 05, 2001 at 13:15:46:

having a dog that has been suffering from "vaccinosis" for several years, this has been a special interest of mine...I sure can't believe what passes for "science" these days :-(

Follow Ups:


Re: conflict of interest in Vaccines (Archive in immunizations.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on September 07, 2001 at 10:07:13:

In Reply to: conflict of interest in Vaccines posted by Pete R on September 05, 2001 at 13:15:46:

Thanks, Pete R.!

This is the first thing I have ever heard, from Phyllis Schaffley, that made any sense to me. I guess it just proves that no one is ALL bad.

Namaste`

Walt

Follow Ups:


[ Immunization Controversy Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!