Vaccinia Immunization-Pros and Cons

[T'ai Chi]

While we're on the topic of vaccines, etc. There was an article in the SI.

Overall I enjoyed the article in the SI.

Some points for the author:

1. I'm not sure what the goal of including your graphs was. Was it to show how the rate has increased due to media hype of anti-vaccination (etc.), or to show that the rate has decreased due to vaccination? I think the former, but it wasn't too clear to me.

1a. What is interesting to me, is how in the UK's graph, for example, how for the year 1983 the rate is around 40, then in 1984 it decreases to 10, then in 1985 it is at 40 again. Also, in 1981, the rate is at 40, then in 1982 it is at 125, then in 1983 it is at 40 again. Do you know what is a mechanism that causes these 'flip-flops'? Is it 'real', or is it an artifact of the reporting/measuring process? The majority of the graphs tend to be more 'smooth'.

2. Under the subtitle, it reads: "Sensationalist media, religious fanatics, and alternative medical practitioners fanned the fires created by..." etc. Nowhere in the article (please let me know if I goofed and missed it) are any details specifically mentioned about religion, except for half a sentence with a reference, which was basically a repeat of what was under the subtitle. It might be true, but it wasn't anywhere near convincing or a thorough treatment of the issue of religion and vaccination issues.

2a. Do you think a religious person who happens to think vaccines are not wise to get is a 'religious fanatic' or belongs to a 'fervent religious group'?

2b. Can you list some of the religious groups you consider fervent or fanatic who you consider anti-vaccination?

3. It would be instructional for the readers to know why there are graphs of Sweeden, UK, Japan, etc., rather than the USA (where, oddly enough, it seems that there is the most sensationalist media, religious fanatics, and alternative medicine practicioners of anywhere else in the world). You touch on it for only one sentence, but I think it would be instructional to explore it further.

4. Do you have professional credentials in this area? You might, I don't know, but it just wasn't mentioned in the SI paper. I don't think it detracts from your points though if you did or didn't, but it would be nice to know if you were a doctor, epidemologist, etc., so if you made an opinions, speculations, etc., about vaccinations and related areas, it would add more weight behind them.

Good job though! I'd score it well over 95% out of 100%.

Please correct me if I made any mistakes and didn't catch them.

-T'aiTrollBazookaJoeWhatever

 

[BTox]

Definitely. And I agreed with the CDC all along that it should not be given premptively (prophylactically) and that it should not be given even to the public unless or until there is a credible threat of exposure or a documented exposure. You said otherwise. No other vaccine carries this warning. You can't name one can you?

Steve, are you saying that CDC disagrees with the policy to preemptively vaccinate health care workers as part of the response to potential terrorist attack in the U.S.?

Routine vaccination of the American public against smallpox stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States. Until recently, the U.S. government provided the smallpox vaccine only to a few hundred scientists and medical professionals who work with smallpox and similar
viruses in a research setting. After the events of September and October, 2001, however, the U.S. government took further actions to improve its level of preparedness against terrorism. For smallpox, this included updating a response plan and ordering enough smallpox vaccine to immunize the American
public in the event of a smallpox outbreak. The plans are in place, and there is sufficient vaccine available to immunize everyone who might need it in the event of an emergency. In addition, in December of 2002, the Bush Administration announced a plan to better protect the American people against
the threat of smallpox attack by hostile groups or governments. This plan includes the creation of smallpox healthcare teams that would respond to a smallpox emergency. Members of these teams are being vaccinated against smallpox. The plan also included vaccination of certain military and civilian personnel who are or may be deployed in high threat areas. (updated Feb 24, 2003)

Source: cdc smallpox info

 

[BillHoyt]

While we're on the topic of vaccines, etc. There was an article in the SI.

Overall I enjoyed the article in the SI.

Some points for the author:

1. I'm not sure what the goal of including your graphs was. Was it to show how the rate has increased due to media hype of anti-vaccination (etc.), or to show that the rate has decreased due to vaccination? I think the former, but it wasn't too clear to me.

The author wanted to highlight the post-Kuhlenkampf paper period. This includes the pertussis rise in all countries, and the recovery to the status quo ante botchum for some countries. All the graphs begin in 1974, the year of that paper, and continued until data were no longer available.

1a. What is interesting to me, is how in the UK's graph, for example, how for the year 1983 the rate is around 40, then in 1984 it decreases to 10, then in 1985 it is at 40 again. Also, in 1981, the rate is at 40, then in 1982 it is at 125, then in 1983 it is at 40 again. Do you know what is a mechanism that causes these 'flip-flops'? Is it 'real', or is it an artifact of the reporting/measuring process? The majority of the graphs tend to be more 'smooth'.

The vaccination fall off for the various countries differed. For all countries, pertussis rates rose when vaccination rates fell. Where vaccination rates got relatively low, there was a tendency to return to pre-vaccination era epidemic cycles. For pertussis, this is usually a three-to-five year cycle. Those flip-flops you see are real. They represent epidemics followed by relatively quiescent periods.

2. Under the subtitle, it reads: "Sensationalist media, religious fanatics, and alternative medical practitioners fanned the fires created by..." etc. Nowhere in the article (please let me know if I goofed and missed it) are any details specifically mentioned about religion, except for half a sentence with a reference, which was basically a repeat of what was under the subtitle. It might be true, but it wasn't anywhere near convincing or a thorough treatment of the issue of religion and vaccination issues.

The complete subtitle tells the story of what happened. "Sensationalist media, religious fanatics, and alternative medical practitioners fanned the fires created by questionable research to spawn worldwide epidemics of a disease that had almost been forgotten." The manuscript limit is 5,000 words. The author felt that the focus should be the fire and not the fanning. Therefore, the author spent more time criticizing the questionable research and focusing on the effects of the negative publicity that followed.

2a. Do you think a religious person who happens to think vaccines are not wise to get is a 'religious fanatic' or belongs to a 'fervent religious group'?

Exactly what label one wishes to affix is immaterial to me. The fact is, that some of the groups alluded to hold fast to a belief in not interfering with "god's will." Their children are both reservoirs of pertussis and often the victims. Sometimes, their local burial services make out.

2b. Can you list some of the religious groups you consider fervent or fanatic who you consider anti-vaccination?

A bit of research will yield you several group names.

3. It would be instructional for the readers to know why there are graphs of Sweeden, UK, Japan, etc., rather than the USA (where, oddly enough, it seems that there is the most sensationalist media, religious fanatics, and alternative medicine practicioners of anywhere else in the world). You touch on it for only one sentence, but I think it would be instructional to explore it further.

When the author wrote the article the CDC was monitoring the situation, but U.S. increases were not very worrisome. (Interestingly, though, the author ran across papers about pockets of pertussis beginning to pop up in regions with fervent religious groups.) By the time the editors decided to publish, the U.S. had already experienced several alarming increases. (Hence the box on page 25.)

4. Do you have professional credentials in this area? You might, I don't know, but it just wasn't mentioned in the SI paper. I don't think it detracts from your points though if you did or didn't, but it would be nice to know if you were a doctor, epidemologist, etc., so if you made an opinions, speculations, etc., about vaccinations and related areas, it would add more weight behind them.

It is the author's policy not to argue from authority and not to discuss his background. This policy was shaped by watching the parade of "Drs," both real and fake, on TV, books, radio and the internet, speaking about their areas of specialty and far afield. Mostly cranks, but they wore white coats. I think the author's policy is somewhat similar to my just mentioning that I am a bouncer in a strip club.

Good job though! I'd score it well over 95% out of 100%.

Please correct me if I made any mistakes and didn't catch them.

-T'aiTrollBazookaJoeWhatever

I'll let the author know. I'm sure he'll be pleased and would want to thank you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks for addressing those Bill.

"A bit of research will yield you several group names."

Oh come on. I get totally hammered here when I even dare suggest that people do some basic research, use Google, etc.

I'm going to cry now.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In answer to BoTox's questions putting aside the war on words (e.g. semantics) that has erupted. By the end of 2003,
the CDC recommended that vaccination be given only to personnel on a designated smallpox response team......... not the public and not all 13.5+++ million health care, social service, police and fire personnel in the country. Oh yes, and lab workers working in smallpox labs or working with cow or monkey or other pox viruses.

You should not volunteer for, or be removed from a smallpox response team if you have any of the following
contraindcations which has been updated December, 2003 (last month) by the CDC.

By the time you get the end of
the list it takes in more than half the country. The only reason to ignore these contraindications is if you are
exposed or there is an outbreak which could expose you. Right now we have neither of those possibilities extant.

This means that unless you are a member of a special smallpox response team, free of contraindications and
there is no outbreak or exposure to smallpox then you should NOT get the vaccine. That includes the majority of
health care workers....who, if they were exposed, have anywhere from 4 to 7 days to obtain protectionpost-exposure. There are two contagious periods, one early called the prodromal phase and the other later which is when infection can occur as a result of contact with infected fluid from a pox lesion. This virus does survive on fomites such as clothing and bedding.

In fact anybody, if they are exposed should get the vaccine. But no, there is no basis for premptively vaccinating
millions of health care workers, fire and police at this time.

Wyeth's DryVax(tm) btw, any remaining in stock like the 14 millions vials which was to be diluted X10 was set to expire in November and December, 2003 based on batch number.

The administration tried to get this all
out on the street and into people before this happened. The failed campaign to do this started in January 2003. Hopefully the new vaccine should be available shortly. This will be a good thing and relieve a lot of concerns over the old one which included potency, expiration and the admixture of several different older antibiotics within the vaccine itself.

There were plenty of good reasons to wait: a new and better and safer vaccine, the absence of a documented
threat, the absence of an outbreak or exposure to the virus, and numerous serious as well as play-it-safe contraindications. I am
glad Hoyt thinks someone allergic to polymixinB has a trivial contraindication but all he has his is opinion.

Informed experts working for the CDC, FDA and NIH who have studied this problem say otherwise.

FROM THE CDC:


The smallpox vaccine can NOT give you smallpox.

The vaccine is not a shot like other vaccines.The needle is pricked into the skin a number of times in a few seconds (usually in the upper arm).The pricking is not deep, but will cause one or two small drops of blood to form.The place on the skin where the vaccine is given is called the "vaccination site."

Getting the vaccine—

before exposure will protect most people from smallpox (the vaccine is about 95% effective). up to 3 days after exposure can prevent the disease or at least make it less severe.

4-7 days after exposure can still make the disease less severe and decrease the chance of death.

Smallpox vaccine protects people from getting smallpox for 3 to 5 years. Protection from severe illness and death can last 10 years or more.

WHY GET VACCINATED NOW?

Smallpox vaccine protects people from smallpox.

SOME people should get the vaccine because they work with smallpox or related viruses in laboratories.

Others are being offered the vaccine so they can assist in responding to a smallpox outbreak. Smallpox virus is kept in two approved laboratories in the United States and Russia.There is concern that terrorists may have obtained the smallpox virus and could use it as a weapon. If this happened, many people could become ill and many could die.

The U.S. needs teams of health care providers and others to be vaccinated so they can respond quickly if a smallpox attack happens.These teams will do many things to help control a smallpox outbreak, including quickly vaccinating people who have been exposed to the disease.

WHO SHOULD GET SMALLPOX VACCINE AND WHEN?

When There is NO Smallpox Outbreak—

You should get the smallpox vaccine if you—

Are a lab worker who works with smallpox or viruses like it.
Are a member of a smallpox response team. When There IS a Smallpox Outbreak—

You should get the smallpox vaccine if you—

Are directly exposed to smallpox virus.
If there is a smallpox outbreak, public health experts will say who else should get the vaccine.

Vaccinated persons may need to get the vaccine again at least every 3-10 years, depending on their risk of exposure to smallpox or related viruses.

WHO SHOULD NOT GET SMALLPOX VACCINE, OR SHOULD WAIT?

When There is NO Smallpox Outbreak—

You should NOT get the smallpox vaccine if you—

Have Skin Problems

People with skin problems are at risk of developing rashes which can be severe if they get the smallpox vaccine.


Anyone who has atopic dermatitis (often called eczema) or had it in the past, should not get the smallpox vaccine.


Anyone who has Darier's disease (a skin disease that usually begins in childhood) should not get the smallpox vaccine.


Anyone who has a skin problem that has made many breaks in the skin (such as an allergic rash, bad burn, impetigo, psoriasis, pityriasis rosea, poison oak, poison ivy, chickenpox, shingles, herpes, or very bad acne) should not get the vaccine now.They should wait until the skin heals before getting the smallpox vaccine.


Have Immune System Problems

Rarely, when a person with a weakened immune system gets the smallpox vaccine, their vaccination site does not heal. Instead, it spreads to other parts of the body.This reaction can be life-threatening.Anyone with a weakened immune system should NOT get the smallpox vaccine, including anyone who:


Has HIV/AIDS, primary immune deficiency disorders, humoral (antibody) immunity problems (such as agammaglobulinemia or lack of normal antibodies), or other diseases that affect the immune system.


Has lupus or another severe autoimmune disease that weakens the immune system.


Has leukemia, lymphoma, or most other cancers.


Is taking cancer treatment with radiation or drugs, or has taken such treatment in the past 3 months.


Is taking, or has recently taken, drugs that affect the immune system.These include high-dose steroids (for 2 weeks or longer within the past month), some drugs for autoimmune disease, or drugs taken for an organ or bone marrow transplant.


Have Heart Problems

Smallpox vaccination may cause heart inflammation that can be mild to life-threatening. It is not known who is at risk for this problem.As a precaution, anyone who has been told by a doctor that they have a heart condition should NOT get the smallpox vaccine, even if they feel well.This includes anyone who has:



Known heart disease, such as past heart attack or angina (chest pain caused by lack of blood to the heart).


Congestive heart failure


Cardiomyopathy (heart muscle becomes enlarged and does not work as well as it should)


Stroke or transient ischemic attack (a "mini-stroke" that causes stroke-like
symptoms, but no lasting damage)


Chest pain or shortness of breath with activity (such as walking up stairs)


Other heart conditions that require the care of a doctor
In addition, anyone with 3 or more of the following risk factors should NOT get the
smallpox vaccine:

Have been told by a doctor that you have high blood pressure.


Have been told by a doctor that you have high blood cholesterol.


Have been told by a doctor that you have diabetes or high blood sugar.


Have a first degree relative (for example, mother, father, sister or brother) who had a heart condition before the age of 50.


Smoke cigarettes now


Are Pregnant or Breastfeeding
Babies of mothers who have been vaccinated while pregnant or during the month before they become pregnant can get a very rare but serious infection from the vaccine.



Do NOT get the smallpox vaccine if you are pregnant, think there is a chance you are pregnant, or think you might become pregnant within 4 weeks after vaccination.


Sexually active women are encouraged to take a pregnancy test before getting the vaccine.The test should be done the day their vaccination is scheduled. But be aware that even the best tests may not detect early pregnancies (those less than 2 weeks).


Take steps to prevent pregnancy during the month before and the month after vaccination:

Do not have sex, or

Use effective birth control every time you have sex. Effective birth control methods include male or female sterilization, hormonal methods (such as birth control pills, implants, patches or injections) and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Condoms and the use of spermicide with diaphragms, sponges, or cervical caps are also acceptable methods, although they are less effective. Do NOT rely solely on the rhythm or ‘natural family’ planning method.


Do NOT get the smallpox vaccine if you are breastfeeding. Follow this advice even if you are pumping and then bottle-feeding breast milk. It is not known if smallpox vaccine virus or antibodies can be passed to babies through breast milk.


Other Reasons—Do NOT Get the Smallpox Vaccine if You—

Are very allergic to polymyxin B, streptomycin, chlortetracycline, neomycin, or latex.


Had a bad reaction the last time you got the smallpox vaccine.


Are using steroid drops in your eyes.


Are moderately or severely ill the day of your vaccination appointment.Wait until you are better before getting the smallpox vaccine.


You should NOT get the smallpox vaccine if you live with or have close physical contact with anyone (such as a sex partner) who—

Has any of the skin problems listed above.


Has any of the immune system problems listed above.


Is pregnant or may become pregnant within 4 weeks of your vaccination.
The smallpox vaccine may pose a similar risk to them.

Smallpox vaccine is not routinely recommended for anyone under 18 years of age or for older people. People age 65 or older who do not have any of the conditions listed above should talk to their health care provider before getting the vaccine.

If There IS a Smallpox Outbreak—

These restrictions may not apply. Public health experts will say who should get the vaccine at that time.

Note: The above information can be found on the previously cited CDC website(s) or linkable from their smallpox homepage.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/needtoknow.asp



It is in the public domain. The same information appears on several different pages within this site, for the public and for health care workers, in the vaccine compensation section and elsewhere. It permeates most of the most recent discussions on this topic. As I said before this information is unprecedented for any other vaccine in existence and represents a unique situation which the pro-vaccination at any cost lobby should ignore. They would be wise to direct their attention to fanatical anti-vaccination proponents where other types of vaccines are concerned or at least follow the CDC and FDA policies on smallpox.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You can find updates on developments in new vaccines for smallpox at the FDA-CBER website.

Here is one of the last I found dated April, 2003:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/infosheets/vaccneut.htm

Hopefully this work is proceeding and we'll hear more soon.

For information on the quoted expiry dates of the existing DryVax stores, see:

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/unusedvaccinepolicy.asp

Here is a letter from Wyeth indicating that it is extending its expiration dates:

http://archive.naccho.org/Documents/smallpox-DryvaxExpirationDate-12-2-03.pdf

 

[SteveGrenard]

T'ai Chi:

Since I didnt get a chance to go out and buy a copy of the last SI, what did the vaccine article have to say about smallpox vaccination?

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi:

Since I didnt get a chance to go out and buy a copy of the last SI, what did the vaccine article have to say about smallpox vaccination?

It only focused on whooping cough from what I could tell.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks T'ai Chi.

Backing up my assertions that the FDA has had pre-9/11 problems (ys: 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000) with Wyeth's Marietta, PA vaccine mfg facility, here is a press release on that:





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T00-48 Print Media: 301-827-6242
October 3, 2000 Broadcast Media: 301-827-3434
Consumer Inquiries:800-INFOFDA

Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Signs Consent Decree with FDA
The Food and Drug Administration today announced that Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth- Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Wyeth) have signed a consent decree of permanent injunction in which Wyeth agreed to a series of measures aimed at ensuring that the products manufactured at Wyeth's Marietta, Pa. and Pearl River, N.Y. facilities are made in compliance with FDA's good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations.
The consent decree was submitted to the U.S. District Court in Knoxville, Tennessee by the Department of Justice on behalf of FDA and is subject to approval by the court.

The government's action in this case follows inspections completed at the Marietta and Pearl River facilities earlier this year during which FDA found deviations from FDA's GMP regulations, including issues related to quality control.

In the months since FDA completed its inspection of the Marietta facility in February, FDA has been working with Wyeth to ensure that the firm's manufacturing problems are being corrected. Wyeth, on its own initiative, temporarily closed a portion of its Marietta facility to address the issues raised during the inspection and to make other facility improvements. Wyeth has made substantial commitments to the agency and has retained independent expert consultants to verify the remedial measures being implemented by the firm.

The consent decree signed today by Wyeth and three of its top corporate executives will ensure that Wyeth keeps its commitments to the agency. Under the consent decree, Wyeth will retain independent expert consultants to conduct comprehensive inspections of its Marietta and Pearl River operations. Their reports will be provided to FDA. The firm has agreed to address any observations made by the expert consultants in accordance with a schedule approved by FDA and to pay $15,000 per day for failure to meet the schedule (up to a $5,000,000 cap). FDA will re- inspect both facilities when the agency believes it is appropriate.

Wyeth also agreed to pay $30,000,000 to the U.S. Treasury within 15 days after the consent decree has been entered by the court. The government sought this money as the equitable remedy of disgorgement based on the firm's deviations from the GMP regulations.

Under the terms of the consent decree, the expert consultants retained by Wyeth will also evaluate Wyeth's quality assurance program at all of the firm's facilities, and review the manufacturing records for batches of products produced at the Marietta and Pearl River facilities after the consent decree is entered by the court. The expert consultants will also conduct yearly inspections of both facilities for a period of four years.

Flu vaccine is one of the products Wyeth makes at the Marietta facility, and the signing of the consent decree will not interrupt its production. The firm has reported to FDA that it anticipates beginning to ship the vaccine by mid-October and that it expects to manufacture and distribute approximately 24 million doses of flu vaccine this year.

The actions being taken by Wyeth and the provisions of the consent decree should ensure the continued quality of the firm's products, including flu vaccine.

The consent decree also resolves the disposition of certain products that were manufactured at the Marietta facility before FDA's November 1999 to February 2000 inspection and seized in June by the Department of Justice on behalf of FDA.

(.... wonder what those confiscated products were?)

Previous FDA inspections of the Marietta facility in August- September 1995, June 1996, and September-October 1998 found GMP deviations that resulted in the issuance of two warning letters and a regulatory meeting between FDA and Wyeth.

(Notice: The above is a press release issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning actions it took against Wyeth, for non-specified GMP violations. Wyeth is also the mfg of the DryVax Smallpox Vaccine and has maintained its stockpile of 14 million vials which it wanted to administer to millions of hcws last year. Only 38K
people were vaccinated, most others declined. Millions of other vials of DryVax also wound up in the hands of the government earlier last year. The number 14 million as given in most rreports at one time were considerably higher. The matter is confusing.

This is in the public domain.

W/o knowing what the problems were or what the confiscated "products" were, this represents a powerful contributory reason why it was/is prudent to wait for a new, safer smallpox vaccine with efficacy/potency and take rate is assured by newer assay methods.

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS01041.html

 

[BillHoyt]

Steve, are you saying that CDC disagrees with the policy to preemptively vaccinate health care workers as part of the response to potential terrorist attack in the U.S.?

Steve has precious little clue as to what he is saying. His turnabouts have been extraordinary; most extraordinary is the one you cite. His strawmen are so numerous they have formed two armies and declared war on one another...

 

[SteveGrenard]

The matter Hoyt is absolutely crystal clear. This is not about me. Its about you and your idiotic and pedantic argument which borders dangerously close on rising to the level of causing a panic when none is indicated ...should anyone, anywhere actually believe you. Well, I suppose you have your "followers" like any alleged cult leader does.

13.5 million health care workers declined a pre-emptive smallpox vaccination with 20+++ year old Wyeth DryVax vaccine last year. You called these people stupid, idiots and worse and said the hundreds of thousands of physicians who counseled this are quacks. Somehow you figured out this was an argument to popularity. You said millions of health care professionals can't be trusted to figure out what to do but that you can. Well well.....if that doesn't tell us something about you, I don't know what will.

You have taken your fanatical pro-vaccination arguments better used against fanatical anti-vaccination proponents where pertussis, diptheria, and polio are concerned and misappropriated them to smallpox with no natural resevoir extant anywhere in the world, not a single case in this country since 1949 and then just 1 death, and with absolutely nothing but speculation claimed that terrorists have it and will use it against this country when they have so many easier (to obtain and safer to handle) agents .... many where a vaccine solution is not as easy as this one. But if we had a decent sp vaccine, we can vacinate everyone that needs it. I have always said what the CDCs says, that those hcws and the rest of the people can be vaccinated, yes ring vaccinated, should an outbreak with the potential for exposure or an actual exposure occurs.

Please ..do us all a favor. Go on the record. Say every healthcare worker should get DryVax tomorrow: every cop, every security officer and every military personnel. Please do that so we know where YOU stand. Write an article in the SI and get them in on your bandwagon. Please.

If now all you've got left are ad hominems, your thesis is vanquished.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

13.5 million health care workers declined a pre-emptive smallpox vaccination

Uh huh. Declined?

But if we had a decent sp vaccine, we can vacinate everyone that needs it.

Rigght, you'd be just as whack whack about any other vaccine. Who is one sided? Suddenly you are for a "decent sp vaccine"??

This whole thread would then be on this nonexistant strawman "decent sp vaccine" if there were actually a reason it was made. You'd be throwing up your little accusations and ridiculous backwards logic on it too.

I still can't believe you are wasting so much time on your rantings. Don't you have anything else to do? You fanatically accuse Hoyt of everything under the sun from the strawmen you erect out of his posts. I think there is something seriously wrong with a person who keeps ranting on and on and on the way you do Steve.

I'm very concerned about you.

 

[BillHoyt]

The matter Hoyt is absolutely crystal clear.

Yes, but apparently you missed your own death. It happened last night, and your corpse is too stolid to climb into the grave you dug for yourself. After strawmanning me every step of the way, ignoring my thread because its title was "biased," and then proceeding to launch a Hoyt attack thread in which you distort everything the CDC and I have said, you then re-mount your campaign against the CDC recommendations that all health care workers take prophylactic smallpox vaccinations.

You continue to carp about an imagined 52 deaths per million figure, which turns out to be a Grenard delusion based on the CDC estimate of 14-52 potentially life-threatening adverse reactions. Rather than accept the correction to your error, you take up the new position that "potentially life threatening" means you could die. Duh. Then you twist that so that it appears that the CDC doesn't know what might happen with the "52." Now, in your fevered delusion you utterly ignore that the CDC has clearly said "1" or "2" per million will die. The 12-50 others survive, you netwit.

The Rand study you utterly sidestep because it doesn't serve your maniacal agenda. It concurs with the CDC and spells out the risk factor that, again, you must needs ignore: the probability of an attack of a certain scenario type. In Rand's risk assesment, prior vaccination of healthcare workers is critical to saving net lives. Net lives, netwit. Net lives. 0% prob, netwit, 00%.

Your arguments get more tortured and convoluted. You are trapped. Then you whip out the major distraction: the plagiarized post. Ah, it works. All attention is on your repeated refusal to stop stealing others' intellectual property. You live to fight another day. Huzzah!

Then, with page after page of double-talk, lies, inuendo, strawmen, ad hom and some bizarre fixation on my medical history and professional background, you snap. Right here in front of Ed and everybody. You snap. Frothing at the mouth, you break free of the chains those nice men in the white coats put you in every night for your own protection and you begin arguing the opposite case. You turn right around and claim the CDC advises for post-exposure vaccination only. What? Are you drunk? Off your meds? You just went h-e-double-hockey-sticks-bent-for-leather decrying the CDC call for prior vaccination and then you turn around and begin arguing against a delusionally imagined CDC call for post-exposure vaccination only?

Do you think I will let you deflect attention from this? Dream on.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Well I see you or Larsen apparently has already reported US. government documents/material to the moderators as copyright violations. How absolutely pathetically sad you both are trying to tell them that the FDA site material is copyright. You have a moderator believing it is FDA.com now do you?


Listen here's why its about you Billy boy. Everything I have quoted comes directly from the FDA abd from the CDC
I dont have a peronal oipinion on this, I have irrefutable proof off government sites that what I assert is correct and what you counter is idiocy. .................

Oh I forgot it is okay to lie, fabricate and create falsehoods on this forum. Not against any rules to be uttery deceptive, even where the public health is concerned. What will be saved for posteriorty Hoyt is everything you wrote here. It should play well out of town.

Bottom line: the government, after 6+ months last year trying to get all hcws to take a vaccine they don't need, now SAYS only the following people need to take it:

1. Anybody that works in a lab with a pox virus

2 Anybody signing up to work in a smallpox reponse team.

Everybody else can forget about it....unless, of course, they are a fanatical pro-vaccine lobby..............

The government further says that no body should take the vaccine if they have any one of the conditions listed (e.g. over 65, under 18, smoke cigarettes, ever had chest pain, have hypertension, pregnant or possibly pregnant) which covers about half or more of the country UNLESS they are exposed to smallpoc or there is anoutbreak with potential to exposure, in the latter case they will let you know.

I apologize to the moderators for reprinting such lengthy govetnment documents but I do so because if people elsewhere on this forum are allowed to purloin copyrighted graphics such as Disney and cartoon characters for avatars or posts, and people like BoTox also could post lengthy and misleading segments of this data, I have no choice but to counter with the true full documents.

 

[BillHoyt]

Well I see you or Larsen apparently has already reported US. government documents/material to the moderators as copyright violations. How absolutely pathetically sad you both are trying to tell them that the FDA site material is copyright. You have a moderator believing it is FDA.com now do you?

What are you ranting about? I don't see any evidence of a report and I didn't make any such report. I've had it with your bizarre behavior and accusations. I await your removal from this forum with great pleasure.

 

[Pyrrho]

As far as I know, materials published by the U.S. government are not copyrighted.

 

[hal bidlack]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>
As noted, published works by the USG are in the public domain. In addition, Steve does include a link to the site with the info, thereby satisfying the rules of this forum. The person who reported this post is in error, as the post is not a violation.

</font></td></tr></table>

 

[BillHoyt]

As far as I know, materials published by the U.S. government are not copyrighted.

True, but we'll need to stay aware that not everything accessible via a government site is the government's intellectual property. The CDC site, for example, contains reprints of papers that are the intellectual property of others and, for which permission to use was granted to the CDC, but not beyond. The CDC site makes this clear here:

"In general all information presented in these pages and all items available for download are for public use. However, you may encounter some pages that require a login password and id. If this is the case you may assume that information presented and items available for download therein are for your authorized access only and not for redistribution by you unless you are otherwise informed."

CDC Information page


But even this CDC comment must be viewed with the caution that the "In general" qualifier suggests. One of the papers the author of a recent SI article used, for instance, was garnered from the "public use" area of the CDC site. It is a reprint from Lancet, and is copyrighted.
Counter example

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Medscape article on naturopathy

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465994_1

Naturopaths describe a "healing power of nature," which is compromised by modern medicine.[10] They state that they "treat the cause of a problem, rather than to merely eliminate or suppress the symptoms."[6] They state that they treat "the whole person." They state that they can "boost the immune system" with herbs and homeopathic preparations. They profess knowledge about preventive medicine that is, implicitly, unknown to medical doctors, public health experts, nurses, nutritionists, and others. They profess special expertise in nutrition and in the use of "natural remedies" made from animal, vegetable, and mineral sources...

...Recommendations, by the Bastyr University AIDS Research Center, for treatment of HIV-positive patients with St. John's wort and garlic (both of which have been shown to reduce blood levels of highly active antiretroviral therapy agents), "acupuncture detoxification auricular program," whole-body hyperthermia, "adrenal glandular," homeopathy, "cranioelectrical stimulation," digestive enzymes, colloidal silver, and nearly 100 other dubious methods.[20,21]...

...A 1999 survey of the small number of NDs in Massachusetts, performed by 2 investigators from Children's Hospital in Boston, is consistent with these findings. They reported that only 20% of those surveyed would recommend that parents have their children vaccinated...[30]