Nursing - Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)

Author

Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)

john

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Number of flu deaths 753
(2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Eric Bohlman" <ebohlman@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns958714537B382ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4...
>too
>
>You can choose to ignore reality if you want, but that won't change it:
>
>http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps...EALTH/210030332
>
>" Congress now is considering a revision that would enable FDA to regulate
>dietary supplements like drugs. "

Which means what? Absolutely nothing.

Congress has a zillion bills introduced each year solely for political
posturing, and the bills never even get considered. Witness the
recent flap over reinstating the draft, introduced by Democrats to
hold Republican feet to the fire, and then "Congress is considering"
is used to attack the Bush administration.

There may have been bills introduced to regulate vitamins every year
for the last 32 years, but that doesn't mean that it will happen.

And in any event, Congress isn't the AMA, Senator Frist
notwithstanding.
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 99
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:00:31 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.228.12.146
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: okepread01 1098277197 68.228.12.146 (Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:59:57 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:59:57 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com misc.education:174021 misc.health.alternative:338965 misc.kids.health:95107 sci.med:154932 sci.med.nursing:99311

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:l2kdd.10139$5b1.8592@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>How about something more recent then:
>
>http://www.supplementquality.com/ed...ves_biased.html
>
>"Supplement Study In AMA Journal Shows Bias And Misunderstanding
>12 August 2001
>by Wyn Snow, Managing Editor
>I. INTRODUCTION
>
>A recently published article in the Archives of Internal Medicine (AoIM)
>suggests that consumers in the US are of mixed opinion regarding the use and
>benefits of dietary supplements. Entitled "Americans' Views on the Use and
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements," the article appeared in the 26 March
>2001 issue. AoIM is published by the American Medical Association, the
>leading professional society for physicians in the US."

Why is a report on the opinions of consumers relevant?

>http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...45/ai_111496960
>
>" In the March 26, 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, the AMA published an editorial entitled, "The Need for
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements--Lessons From Ephedra." (7) The AMA was,
>in effect, warning that it no longer would abide the tentative truce between
>them legislated by Congress in the form of the 1994 DSHEA."

This is interpretation. Why don't you cite the JAMA article itself?

Note that regulating dietary supplements is NOT the same as "making
them illegal", which was your claim above.

"Over the counter" medications are regulated, but are not illegal.

>And:
>
>http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7143
>
>"January 17, 2002
>Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA
>Executive Vice President
>American Medical Association
>515 N. State Street
>Chicago, IL 60610
>312-464-5000
>
>Dear Dr. Maves,
>
> On September 28th, 2000 your predecessor, Dr. E. Ratcliffe
>Anderson, Jr., called upon the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
>initiate proceedings to remove dietary supplements containing ephedrine
>alkaloids from the United States market. [1] Citing §402 (f)(1)(A)(i) of the
>Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the American Medical Association (AMA) sought to
>have ephedrine alkaloid dietary supplements deemed adulterated due to their
>significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. [2]

That is arguing for a PARTICULAR supplement to be removed from the
market, because it contains an regulated drug.

> [1] Anderson, E, Ratcliffe. AMA Letter to the Food & Drug Administration
>re: Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids. September 28, 2000.
>
>[2] 21 USC 331(a), and 342(f) "
>
>Now, any more cavalier and unsupported dismissals of this supposedly 10-year
>old issue?

Seems worthy of dismissal to me. I am sure that the AMA has positions
on several drugs, but lobbying for their regulation, or even for their
removal from the marketplace is not the same as lobbying for making
all supplements illegal or regulated (though I for one would like to
see them regulated as a consumer, I am not associated with the AMA)

Your claim, as yet unsupported, is
>The AMA is now lobbying with others to make over-the-counter vitamin
>supplements illegal

Not specific ones, but all of them. Not regulated, but "illegal".
Strong claims require strong support.

(not that it matters what the AMA supports - they don't run the
government)

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

Perhaps math is not your strong suit. Look up "biased standard deviation".

"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:79cf0a8.0410150917.43fd682e@posting.google.com...
> "john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message
news:<cknu3j$9a6$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Perhaps English is not your first language, John? Look up the word
"average."
>
> SBH

David Wright

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

In article <S8Ubd.186440$wV.157357@attbi_s54>,
Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:q7tvm0p9h1td3rovubp9ujgsdsctrj9rk3@4ax.com...
>will
>
>Hence the latest CDC declarations are, at best, a gross distortion of the
>facts, by taking values clearly marked as a sum of causes and restating it
>as though it is attributed to one cause only.
>
>Follow the money.

What money? It's far more profitable for doctors to treat diseases
than to give a $6 flu shot.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Carey Gregory

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:

>Perhaps math is not your strong suit. Look up "biased standard deviation".
>
>"Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
>[snipped 'cause it doesn't much matter what he said]

Go for it, Gymmy! Harris thinks he's such a math wiz. Set him straight.

makemyday@worldnet.att.net

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> Flu shots have always been
> about preventing complications. Deaths due to complications are
> recorded separately from deaths due directly to flu. But for the
> public, the number that matters is the aggregate deaths due to flu.
> That number has always been much higher than 753.

Excluding accidents/war, premature death derives from genetic weakness.
When LOOZerz are deleted by natural attrition, a stronger robust
soceity results.

Otherwise, in the limit, you inevitably get a fragile unstable weak
society that collapses under the slightest perturbation (e.g., vaccine
shortage).

Do we really want the health equivalent of affirmative action?

Best not to fool with mother nature.

Byron Canfield

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8_Ubd.7047$bk1.754@fed1read05...
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> <Nods> When I went into cardiac arrest in July of 2003, I'd had a heart
> attack. But the *reason* I had the heart attack was because I had suffered
a
> severe asthma attack. Treating me now to prevent another heart attack as
if
> I had heart disease would be foolish; treating me to prevent another
severe
> asthma attack makes a heck of a lot of sense.
>
> Same thing with flu. If you get the flu, you get pneumonia and die as a
> result, did the flu kill you or didn't it? I say it did, just like asthma
> damned near killed me by causing me to have a heart attack.

But if you get a heart attack, did you necessarily have an asthma attack? I
think a lot of doctors would be surprised, if that were the case. Or if you
contract pneumonia, did you necessarily have the flu?

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:af50n0dejrponf7nrg5up2599r91mmev9u@4ax.com...
> "Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
36,000[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I see no evidence to support your claim. Flu shots have always been
> about preventing complications. Deaths due to complications are
> recorded separately from deaths due directly to flu. But for the
> public, the number that matters is the aggregate deaths due to flu.
> That number has always been much higher than 753.
>
> When faced with two different numbers on the CDC site, it helps to
> look at the source documents from which these numbers are devised.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5306a1.htm
> which cites:
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract
> for the number 36,000 per year
>
> Actually that seems to be just the respiratory and circulatory deaths.
> The total deaths associated with flu was calculated to average 51,203
> over the 76-77 to 98-99 period:

I made no claim other than that, if the CDC is using the 65,984 number from
that report, in finding the average deaths from influenza (as some of the
other respondents seem to think they should), the CDC violates simple rules
of logic. What was NOT stated in that report was that, of the 65,984 deaths
resulting from "Influenza and pneumonia", all the cases of pneumonia were a
direct result of the influenza. So without that qualificaton, and since
influenza is NOT the sole cause of pneumonia, it is, without question, a
distortion of fact to then take that number, 65,984, and use it in finding
average deaths caused by influenza.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

They get the 6 a pop and still have their plates full of of victims.

Maybe if we let our children get controlled childhood diseases we wouldn't
have a planet full of suckholes.

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
news:IBccd.401756$Fg5.271605@attbi_s53...
> "David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:_%0cd.8368$5b1.2335@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> 36,000
> it
the[vbcol=seagreen]
> it
>
> People didn't use to get flu shots at all -- there was no such thing when
I
> was a kid. Now, people in the 10s of millions get flu shots, at 6 bucks a
> pop. I'd say that qualifies as "money" for the two remaining
pharmaceutical
> companies producing the vaccine.
>
>
> --
> "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
> those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
> -----------------------------
> Byron "Barn" Canfield
>
>

Carey Gregory

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:l5c3n05slaf0cu1vk8cimcag0frq2260qh@4ax.com...
>conspiracy
>
>So I suppose you also believe that corporations have your own best interest
>at heart?
>
>Talk about naive.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you should try reading
what I actually write instead of what you wish I'd written.

Can you explain why doctors, the majority of whom work in solo practice or
small groups, would participate in a corporate scam that actually deprives
them of income? Are they stupid? Or are you suggesting there's a massive
conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of doctors who have all kept a
perfect secret for decades? If you believe hundreds of thousands of people
can keep a secret, then I'm afraid it is you who are naive.

JudeH

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message news:<6qCdnbKITIXd7OzcRVn-gQ@golden.net>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> They get the 6 a pop and still have their plates full of of victims.
>
> Maybe if we let our children get controlled childhood diseases we wouldn't
> have a planet full of suckholes.
>
>
> "Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in message
> news:IBccd.401756$Fg5.271605@attbi_s53...
> 36,000
> it
> will
> the
> it
> I
> pharmaceutical

If you look at the data >90% of the deaths are for the elderly. Does
this
justify the media bombardment of 30,000 dead for the general
population?
Also , whose to say that those very ill patients who died of the Flu
wouldn't have died in a year of something else anyway? Sure, make a
recommendation
for those at risk but don't use it as an excuse to create hysteria.

Secondly what are the side effects of the vaccine? If 1 in 1000 kids
are at risk for the flu, why expose the other 999 to the risk, such
inreased risk of asthma for flumist.

Regarding economics, there are 6 billion people in the world. If only
3 billion got vaccinated at $3 that's still a 10 billion market, more
than enough reason for vaccine makers to push the media to make sure
and get everyone vaccinated.

JudeH

2004-10-20, 11:12 am

PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message news:<ie19n0tcmo5a8q58cgrri2iqd95ubtj4vf@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:11:58 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
>
> It's free to our patients. WE as a medical institution are paying for
> it, XXXXXXX.
>
> PF

So the pharma companies are paying for your patients to get the flu
shot. How nice. It's a wonder they stay in business.

Do they give out flumist for free too?

abacus

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
>
> So, I stand by my previous statement. If doctors really were trying
> to maximize profit, nobody would ever get a vaccine for anything.
> It's far more profitable to treat a sick patient than to make a few
> bucks on vaccinating one. And note that doctors in general don't do
> better than break-even on vaccines; the profit per dose is quite low.
>
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (I don't think most doctors
are trying to maximize profit, although I do think drug companies
are). Profitability is not the same as billable $'s for services
rendered. Sure, you get to charge more to treat a sick patient - more
office calls, more treatments, etc., but it's also considerably more
effort and expenditure for the doctor - more office calls, more
treatments, etc. In addition, a sick patient who runs up a large bill
is more likely to be unable to pay those large bills than a healthy
patient who has only a small bill. Thus, I would not expect that
profit to be higher for treating those patients who become seriously
ill vs vaccinating patients to prevent the illness even if the profit
per dose of vaccine is quite low.

paghat

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message[vbcol=seagreen]

It is the drug companies & the insurance companies who are trying to
maximize profits. And many diseases that are not profitable have no
funding for research, since the drug companies control so many of the
research dollars. If everyone paid $500 for their flu shot, there'd be no
shortages ever again, rather than shortages for two years running.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Since such a high percentage of the population is uninsured & has only
marginal access to any health care at all, doctors would rather give a
prescription & never see most of the bums ever again.

Since the research money is in the drugging of america, the whole medical
system top to bottom is a culture of drugs.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Doctors aren't supposed to profit by meds as that's a conflict of
interest. Their profit margin is built into the base fee for even
permitting you to be in the building, plus as many added fees as possible
depending on how much they can do for you in the thirty seconds spent in
your presence. Whether they give you five shots & prescriptions for fifty
drugs, or just one pillowpack of free samples, their personal profit
margin will be about the same so should not influence whether they give
you good treatment or mediocre.

Your ability to pay will influence how good the medical treatment you can
get will be, but if you are rich or well-insured, the drug company will
get their cut & you'll be well-blessed with prescriptions, & the
pharmacist will know your first name & smile when you arrive. If you're
dirt poor you'll be shuffled out of the system as fast as possible with
that pillowpack of close-enough freebies.

If you can't afford the drugs you can't have them, even if it means you'll
die. But if the doctor's income is impacted, it will be from having to
treat you (if only minimally) when you come back to the emergency room
with only a few days left to live & no way of your estate paying for
whatever little care you got.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

Mark Probert

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

"abacus" <abacus67210@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ce9f3a02.0410201051.63ac96d@posting.google.com...
> wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
> Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (I don't think most doctors
> are trying to maximize profit, although I do think drug companies
> are). Profitability is not the same as billable $'s for services
> rendered. Sure, you get to charge more to treat a sick patient - more
> office calls, more treatments, etc., but it's also considerably more
> effort and expenditure for the doctor - more office calls, more
> treatments, etc. In addition, a sick patient who runs up a large bill
> is more likely to be unable to pay those large bills than a healthy
> patient who has only a small bill. Thus, I would not expect that
> profit to be higher for treating those patients who become seriously
> ill vs vaccinating patients to prevent the illness even if the profit
> per dose of vaccine is quite low.

Many ill people are covered by health insurance and this factoid blows your
argument.

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-20, 7:11 pm

Just plain Pharma fear mongering and the docs have sworn to help people stay
well.
The doctors are the suckers and we, the idiots pay the bills.

"paghat" <paghatSPAM-ME-NOT@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:paghatSPAM-ME-NOT-2010041226140001@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
>
> It is the drug companies & the insurance companies who are trying to
> maximize profits. And many diseases that are not profitable have no
> funding for research, since the drug companies control so many of the
> research dollars. If everyone paid $500 for their flu shot, there'd be no
> shortages ever again, rather than shortages for two years running.
>
>
> Since such a high percentage of the population is uninsured & has only
> marginal access to any health care at all, doctors would rather give a
> prescription & never see most of the bums ever again.
>
> Since the research money is in the drugging of america, the whole medical
> system top to bottom is a culture of drugs.
>
>
> Doctors aren't supposed to profit by meds as that's a conflict of
> interest. Their profit margin is built into the base fee for even
> permitting you to be in the building, plus as many added fees as possible
> depending on how much they can do for you in the thirty seconds spent in
> your presence. Whether they give you five shots & prescriptions for fifty
> drugs, or just one pillowpack of free samples, their personal profit
> margin will be about the same so should not influence whether they give
> you good treatment or mediocre.
>
> Your ability to pay will influence how good the medical treatment you can
> get will be, but if you are rich or well-insured, the drug company will
> get their cut & you'll be well-blessed with prescriptions, & the
> pharmacist will know your first name & smile when you arrive. If you're
> dirt poor you'll be shuffled out of the system as fast as possible with
> that pillowpack of close-enough freebies.
>
> If you can't afford the drugs you can't have them, even if it means you'll
> die. But if the doctor's income is impacted, it will be from having to
> treat you (if only minimally) when you come back to the emergency room
> with only a few days left to live & no way of your estate paying for
> whatever little care you got.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
>
> --
> "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
> "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
> -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
> Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

Carey Gregory

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
>principles
>Simple contradiction is no proof of anything, nor is it proper debate, nor
>is it even conversational. It's just childish.

Who said anything about contradiction? I said you didn't understand the
article, which clearly you don't. You made that glaringly obvious in the
beginning of this thread when Bob LeChevalier had to explain the original
citation to you several times before you finally got it (or simply shut up
without actually understanding it, which I suspect is the case).

The truly amusing part is that the original poster also completely
misinterpreted the article he cited. But here you are a week late still
harping about it, and still not seeing the blatantly obvious error.

Flu is a significant killer, flu vaccines reduce the death rate, and the
data showing that have been presented to you in black and white. Maybe you
should go back and read the original citation and see if you can get a
glimmer of understanding. Nothing above grade school arithmetic is
required.

Mark

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message news:<65SdnS9k9s4acOvcRVn-2w@golden.net>...
> Just plain Pharma fear mongering and the docs have sworn to help people stay
> well.
> The doctors are the suckers and we, the idiots pay the bills.

Step one: Graduate high school

Step two: Spend the next 12-16 years in higher education/post-grad
training

Step three: Seek me out and then we'll talk about who is the
sucker/deluded shill...

....until then, keep your ignorant mouth shut about my motives,
Halfwit. I work long hours striving to keep kids well, willing to
take the indigent on as my patients, knowing full well that I'm not
going to have my bills paid for the effort...

....I *like* keeping poor kids well because they need someone to turn
to. I'm no Messiah and I'm no Albert Schweitzer, but I *AM* a caring
guy, and it makes me more than a little bit pissed off when ignorant
assholes like you accuse me of being an ignorant profiteer. If I were
a profiteer, I'd open a boutique practice, limit my patient load to an
even 500, and rake in a cool 1M a year. But I XXXXin' well don't, so
don't lay your "Doctors Are Bad" brush on too thickly, okay?

There are those who might ask, "If you're so busy, why do you waste
time on the Internet?"...my answer is that I stumbled on this forum a
number of years ago and I saw some scary, dangerous advice being given
out. I thought I could interject a sense of rationality into the
discussion. Of course, I was wrong, but that hasn't prevented me from
revisiting this discussion forum to try to fulfill my original
purpose.

I don't know what the hell you do for a living, "Gym", but it
evidently doesn't involve a lot of critical thinking. Once you get an
eensy bit educated about the basic sciences, go ahead and e-mail me if
you want. Unlike you, my e-mail address isn't faked or forged. If
you have honest interest (as opposed to knee-jerk opposition to
anything representing real science), I'd be happy to engage you in a
discussion. Until then, don't paint with too broad a brush, mmmm'kay?

Mark, MD

David Wright

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

In article <E6mdd.272574$MQ5.193265@attbi_s52>,
Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:l2kdd.10139$5b1.8592@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>How about something more recent then:
>
>http://www.supplementquality.com/ed...ves_biased.html
>
>"Supplement Study In AMA Journal Shows Bias And Misunderstanding
>12 August 2001
>by Wyn Snow, Managing Editor
>I. INTRODUCTION
>
>A recently published article in the Archives of Internal Medicine (AoIM)
>suggests that consumers in the US are of mixed opinion regarding the use and
>benefits of dietary supplements. Entitled "Americans' Views on the Use and
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements," the article appeared in the 26 March
>2001 issue. AoIM is published by the American Medical Association, the
>leading professional society for physicians in the US."
>
>
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...45/ai_111496960
>
>" In the March 26, 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, the AMA published an editorial entitled, "The Need for
>Regulation of Dietary Supplements--Lessons From Ephedra." (7) The AMA was,
>in effect, warning that it no longer would abide the tentative truce between
>them legislated by Congress in the form of the 1994 DSHEA. "
>
>And:
>
>http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7143
>
>"January 17, 2002
>Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA
>Executive Vice President
>American Medical Association
>515 N. State Street
>Chicago, IL 60610
>312-464-5000
>
>Dear Dr. Maves,
>
> On September 28th, 2000 your predecessor, Dr. E. Ratcliffe
>Anderson, Jr., called upon the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
>initiate proceedings to remove dietary supplements containing ephedrine
>alkaloids from the United States market. [1] Citing §402 (f)(1)(A)(i) of the
>Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the American Medical Association (AMA) sought to
>have ephedrine alkaloid dietary supplements deemed adulterated due to their
>significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury. [2]
>
> [1] Anderson, E, Ratcliffe. AMA Letter to the Food & Drug Administration
>re: Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids. September 28, 2000.
>
>[2] 21 USC 331(a), and 342(f) "
>
>Now, any more cavalier and unsupported dismissals of this supposedly 10-year
>old issue?

I must have missed the articles that explain why ephedra is a vitamin.
That was, after all, the original basis of your rant, remember? You
know, about how the "AMA" was trying to ban vitamin supplements.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

David Wright

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

In article <E6mdd.280682$D%.206689@attbi_s51>,
Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:Ukkdd.10146$5b1.5096@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>And that would be what studies? How to call people names?

No, the ones that demonstrate that vaccinations actually do work.
The studies are out there, if you're willing to take a few minutes to
look for them.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

David Wright

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

In article <opmdd.424414$Fg5.122895@attbi_s53>,
Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:x3ldd.10256$5b1.3438@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>statistically
>
>It is your infantile malicious demeanor that has prompted me to add you to
>my
>killfile, child.
>
><plonk>

I'll try to contain my grief.

This Canfield is an odd character. Some of what he writes is
perfectly reasonable, but he sure has a bee in his bonnet about
certain subjects like vaccination.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

David Wright

2004-10-20, 10:08 pm

In article <lk0cn0pcrcdot6rl25eh3u0fcn066tugm8@4ax.com>,
PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:08:36 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
><barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
>
>Why do that anti-vac idiots delight in announcing that they have added
>yet another Usenet poster who disagrees with them to their killfile?
>Are they to be congratulated for figuratively covering their ears when
>they're hearing what they don't want to and what they are unable to
>respond to? When they have nothing further of substance to support
>their nonsense? Is the "<plonk>" supposed to be read as "I give up?"

I guess so. That must mean I win, if they give up.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

Trade the flu for Alzheimers? No thanx.

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vp6en0994o4s8qobis4nib27j6ipjn572v@4ax.com...
> "Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
know[vbcol=seagreen]
nor[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Who said anything about contradiction? I said you didn't understand the
> article, which clearly you don't. You made that glaringly obvious in the
> beginning of this thread when Bob LeChevalier had to explain the original
> citation to you several times before you finally got it (or simply shut up
> without actually understanding it, which I suspect is the case).
>
> The truly amusing part is that the original poster also completely
> misinterpreted the article he cited. But here you are a week late still
> harping about it, and still not seeing the blatantly obvious error.
>
> Flu is a significant killer, flu vaccines reduce the death rate, and the
> data showing that have been presented to you in black and white. Maybe
you
> should go back and read the original citation and see if you can get a
> glimmer of understanding. Nothing above grade school arithmetic is
> required.
>

PF Riley

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

On 20 Oct 2004 08:10:47 -0700, cmlinderquist@hotmail.com (JudeH)
wrote:

>PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message news:<ie19n0tcmo5a8q58cgrri2iqd95ubtj4vf@4ax.com>...
>
>So the pharma companies are paying for your patients to get the flu
>shot. How nice. It's a wonder they stay in business.
>
>Do they give out flumist for free too?

Is it a requirement of the anti-vac cult that you demonstrate a
learning disability for reading comprehension?

Where did I say the pharmaceutical companies are giving us the vaccine
for free? I said WE are PAYING for it. The pharmaceutical companies
sell it to us, we give it to the patients for free.

PF

Ilena Rose

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:09:33 -0400, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message
>news:cknu3j$9a6$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>You might want to look up the word average. It means that some years it will
>be higher and some it will be lower.
>
>Jeff

How many years were "averaged" with 2002 (753 deaths) to come up with
this 36,000 deaths figure that is being advertised so widely, Jeff?

Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message news:<cknu3j$9a6$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> "Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
> people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
> http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm
>
>
>
> Number of flu deaths 753
> (2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

COMMENT:

Perhaps English is not your first language, John? Look up the word "average."

SBH

Joe Blow

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

Ilena Rose wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:02:53 GMT, "Mark Probert" Probert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
> So how many years were averaged in, Marla, to come up with 36,000
> deaths "average" when only 753 occured in 2000?

1976-1998.

Byron Canfield

2004-10-21, 2:08 am

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:q7tvm0p9h1td3rovubp9ujgsdsctrj9rk3@4ax.com...
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
will[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, there is another problem with the poster's conclusion. The
> data in the PDF document separates the 753 deaths from influenza from
> deaths from pneumonia (and also gives the combined total, which was
> over 65,000). The "key facts" page is discussing deaths from flu and
> complications, which include pneumonia. People don't usually die
> directly from flu itself, but from the complications that flu can
> easily become, especially in the elderly and young kids.

Hence the latest CDC declarations are, at best, a gross distortion of the
facts, by taking values clearly marked as a sum of causes and restating it
as though it is attributed to one cause only.

Follow the money.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Jeff

2004-10-21, 7:11 pm

"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message
news:cknu3j$9a6$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
> people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
> http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm
>
>
>
> Number of flu deaths 753
> (2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf
>
>

You might want to look up the word average. It means that some years it will
be higher and some it will be lower.

Jeff

Mark

2004-10-21, 7:11 pm

cmlinderquist@hotmail.com (JudeH) wrote in message news:<1260d733.0410200710.3cc6f267@posting.google.com>...
> PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message news:<ie19n0tcmo5a8q58cgrri2iqd95ubtj4vf@4ax.com>...
>
> So the pharma companies are paying for your patients to get the flu
> shot. How nice. It's a wonder they stay in business.
>
> Do they give out flumist for free too?

Did your momma drop you on your head one too many times? PF clearly
said that he buys the vaccine from the companies, then he gives it to
the patients for free. What part of that don't you understand?

Mark, MD

Mark Probert

2004-10-21, 7:11 pm

"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message
news:cknu3j$9a6$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
> people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
> http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm
>
>
>
> Number of flu deaths 753
> (2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

Well, John, we knew you were lose with logic, now you are lose with numbers
and reading comprehension.

Did you skip reading the word *average* in the first quote? Sure you did.

Circe

2004-10-21, 10:08 pm

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> I see no evidence to support your claim. Flu shots have always been
> about preventing complications. Deaths due to complications are
> recorded separately from deaths due directly to flu. But for the
> public, the number that matters is the aggregate deaths due to flu.

<Nods> When I went into cardiac arrest in July of 2003, I'd had a heart
attack. But the *reason* I had the heart attack was because I had suffered a
severe asthma attack. Treating me now to prevent another heart attack as if
I had heart disease would be foolish; treating me to prevent another severe
asthma attack makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Same thing with flu. If you get the flu, you get pneumonia and die as a
result, did the flu kill you or didn't it? I say it did, just like asthma
damned near killed me by causing me to have a heart attack.

Next?
--
Be well, Barbara

"Bush didn't pee his pants or kill anyone, so my guess is that people will
say [the third debate] was a tie."--Jessi Klein
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...blog/index.html)

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Ilena Rose

2004-10-21, 10:08 pm

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:41:05 -0400, Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com>
wrote:

>Ilena Rose wrote:
>
>
>1976-1998.

Thanks ... I couldn't get the pdf to come up ...

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-21, 10:08 pm

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:q7tvm0p9h1td3rovubp9ujgsdsctrj9rk3@4ax.com...
>will
>
>Hence the latest CDC declarations are, at best, a gross distortion of the
>facts, by taking values clearly marked as a sum of causes and restating it
>as though it is attributed to one cause only.

I see no evidence to support your claim. Flu shots have always been
about preventing complications. Deaths due to complications are
recorded separately from deaths due directly to flu. But for the
public, the number that matters is the aggregate deaths due to flu.
That number has always been much higher than 753.

When faced with two different numbers on the CDC site, it helps to
look at the source documents from which these numbers are devised.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5306a1.htm
which cites:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract
for the number 36,000 per year

Actually that seems to be just the respiratory and circulatory deaths.
The total deaths associated with flu was calculated to average 51,203
over the 76-77 to 98-99 period:
< Influenza viruses and RSV, respectively, were associated with annual
< means (SD) of 8097 (3084) and 2707 (196) underlying pneumonia and
< influenza deaths, 36 155 (11 055) and 11 321 (668) underlying
< respiratory and circulatory deaths, and 51 203 (15 081) and 17 358
< (1086) all-cause deaths. For underlying respiratory and circulatory
< deaths, 90% of influenza- and 78% of RSV-associated deaths occurred
< among persons aged 65 years or older. Influenza was associated with
< more deaths than RSV in all age groups except for children younger
< than 1 year.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

David Wright

2004-10-21, 10:08 pm

In article <ce9f3a02.0410201051.63ac96d@posting.google.com>,
abacus <abacus67210@yahoo.com> wrote:
>wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote in message
>Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (I don't think most doctors
>are trying to maximize profit, although I do think drug companies
>are). Profitability is not the same as billable $'s for services
>rendered. Sure, you get to charge more to treat a sick patient - more
>office calls, more treatments, etc., but it's also considerably more
>effort and expenditure for the doctor - more office calls, more
>treatments, etc. In addition, a sick patient who runs up a large bill
>is more likely to be unable to pay those large bills than a healthy
>patient who has only a small bill. Thus, I would not expect that
>profit to be higher for treating those patients who become seriously
>ill vs vaccinating patients to prevent the illness even if the profit
>per dose of vaccine is quite low.

Still doesn't work. The profit for vaccines is typically around zero.
It'd be much more sensible, financially, to not give them at all.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

PF Riley

2004-10-22, 2:08 am

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:16:39 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

>In article <ce9f3a02.0410201051.63ac96d@posting.google.com>,
>abacus <abacus67210@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Still doesn't work. The profit for vaccines is typically around zero.
>It'd be much more sensible, financially, to not give them at all.

You are correct. And that is exactly why we are giving it away for
free. Because it would cost us more to collect reimbursement for them
than we would collect.

We have three choices:

1. Not give flu shots, have people get sick who might not have.
2. Give flu shots, bill for them, lose money.
3. Give flu shots, don't bill for them, lose less money.

We chose #3. If it were only about the money and we were part of a
grand conspiracy to profit off of useless vaccines, wouldn't we pick
#1?

PF

Ed Mathes

2004-10-22, 2:08 am

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:b4_dd.16042$Km.1195@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Still doesn't work. The profit for vaccines is typically around zero.
> It'd be much more sensible, financially, to not give them at all.

We received no vaccine this year. Last year we purchased 1100 doses.
Insurance reimbursed us $11.46 per immunization. Whoopee!! $$12606.00!!

$80 per vial at 10 doses per vial = 110 vials = $8800.00

Needle/Syringe/alcohol/cotton swab ~ $2.40 per each at 1100 shots = $2706.00

$8800 + 2706 = $11506.00 = $1100.00 "profit".

I didn't include labor costs (the nurse or myself giving the shot, the
secretary answering the phone to schedule the appointments, the paper used
to post signs indicating our shot hours, the sing-in paper, etc, etc.).

Plus, our staff was given free shots (11 employees, 2 doctors, 1 PA = 14
shots = $8.00 vaccine dose + $2.40/needle etc = $10.40 x 14 = $145.60 to
immunize staff.

So now "profit" is under $1000.00.

And I haven't included the "hassle" factor.....the inconvenience of having
1100 patients traipse through our office for flu-shots.

Ed

Byron Canfield

2004-10-22, 2:08 am

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:_%0cd.8368$5b1.2335@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <S8Ubd.186440$wV.157357@attbi_s54>,
> Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
36,000[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> What money? It's far more profitable for doctors to treat diseases
> than to give a $6 flu shot.

People didn't use to get flu shots at all -- there was no such thing when I
was a kid. Now, people in the 10s of millions get flu shots, at 6 bucks a
pop. I'd say that qualifies as "money" for the two remaining pharmaceutical
companies producing the vaccine.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Carey Gregory

2004-10-22, 7:08 am

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>In the first place, it does not deprive them of income. To assume that is
>just looking at the short term.

Of course it deprives them of income, as David Wright pointed out. In case
you missed it, it goes like this: Doctors make money when their patients
are sick. Vaccines prevent their patients from getting sick, yet doctors
make almost nothing providing them.

Well patients = less income. Duh.

>people
>
>It's not so difficult when those that attempt to speak out are branded
>"crackpots" by the AMA.

Oh please, not the AMA bogeyman! Yeah, doctors are so intimidated by the
big, bad AMA that even on their deathbed they won't reveal the massive
conspiracy. Right ho! Put that foil beanie back on before the mind-control
rays get you.

>In a similar
>vein, major food corporations are attempting to create seeds for crops that
>are not capable of producing their own seeds so that those who use them
>become dependent on those corporations for continued crops.

So what? Every industry on the planet that can get away with making
proprietary products does so. Welcome to the world. Now, what does that
have to do with vaccines?

>I repeat, talk about naive.

You swallow conspiracy theories without question even when they're full of
blatantly obvious holes, yet you imagine that those who see the holes are
the naive ones. How quaint....

David Wright

2004-10-22, 11:08 am

In article <IBccd.401756$Fg5.271605@attbi_s53>,
Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:_%0cd.8368$5b1.2335@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>36,000
>it
>it
>
>People didn't use to get flu shots at all -- there was no such thing when I
>was a kid. Now, people in the 10s of millions get flu shots, at 6 bucks a
>pop. I'd say that qualifies as "money" for the two remaining pharmaceutical
>companies producing the vaccine.

Well, let's just do the math on that, shall we? There were supposed
to be two companies each producing 50 million flu vaccine doses, which
retail at $6 a pop, roughly. Now, that's $300 million in gross sales,
but making vaccines isn't trivial, and the companies aren't getting $6
per dose anyway. If they're getting $3, I'd be surprised.

But let's suppose they are getting $3 per dose, or $150 million.
That's a lot of money to you or me, but consider that Merck, which
just pulled Vioxx from the shelves, was making $2.5 *billion* per year
on it. (One of their 5 main sources of income.)

So, I stand by my previous statement. If doctors really were trying
to maximize profit, nobody would ever get a vaccine for anything.
It's far more profitable to treat a sick patient than to make a few
bucks on vaccinating one. And note that doctors in general don't do
better than break-even on vaccines; the profit per dose is quite low.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Carey Gregory

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:

>If doctors really were trying to maximize profit, nobody would
>ever get a vaccine for anything. It's far more profitable to treat
>a sick patient than to make a few bucks on vaccinating one.

Sheesh.... There you go again, David, clouding a perfectly good conspiracy
theory with common sense.

David Wright

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

In article <l5c3n05slaf0cu1vk8cimcag0frq2260qh@4ax.com>,
Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote:
>wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
>
>
>Sheesh.... There you go again, David, clouding a perfectly good conspiracy
>theory with common sense.

Oh, don't sweat it -- they'll just accuse me of being a mouthpiece for
the conspiracy and it'll be back to business as usual.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Circe" <guavaln@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8_Ubd.7047$bk1.754@fed1read05...
>a
>if
>severe
>
>But if you get a heart attack, did you necessarily have an asthma attack? I
>think a lot of doctors would be surprised, if that were the case. Or if you
>contract pneumonia, did you necessarily have the flu?

No. If they assumed that you did, then they would be reporting over
60,000 deaths per year, since that is how many died of pneumonia or
flu. But they know which pneumonia deaths are secondary complications
of flu, and what other illness were secondary complications of flu as
well. They just don't break it down that way in the one annual report
that was cited.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

4) give flu shots, be litigated for damages incurred, die a wino in the
gutter.

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:281hn0tkbfhfqgvp89l6pnao5arn45sduv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:16:39 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net (David
> Wright) wrote:
>
>
> You are correct. And that is exactly why we are giving it away for
> free. Because it would cost us more to collect reimbursement for them
> than we would collect.
>
> We have three choices:
>
> 1. Not give flu shots, have people get sick who might not have.
> 2. Give flu shots, bill for them, lose money.
> 3. Give flu shots, don't bill for them, lose less money.
>
> We chose #3. If it were only about the money and we were part of a
> grand conspiracy to profit off of useless vaccines, wouldn't we pick
> #1?
>
> PF

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-22, 7:12 pm

Why would you support the massive profits of the Pharm-vac companies when
you know the vaccines are hurting people then?

"Ed Mathes" <emathes@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5E%dd.15877$JS4.2834@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:b4_dd.16042$Km.1195@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> We received no vaccine this year. Last year we purchased 1100 doses.
> Insurance reimbursed us $11.46 per immunization. Whoopee!! $$12606.00!!
>
> $80 per vial at 10 doses per vial = 110 vials = $8800.00
>
> Needle/Syringe/alcohol/cotton swab ~ $2.40 per each at 1100 shots =
$2706.00
>
> $8800 + 2706 = $11506.00 = $1100.00 "profit".
>
> I didn't include labor costs (the nurse or myself giving the shot, the
> secretary answering the phone to schedule the appointments, the paper used
> to post signs indicating our shot hours, the sing-in paper, etc, etc.).
>
> Plus, our staff was given free shots (11 employees, 2 doctors, 1 PA = 14
> shots = $8.00 vaccine dose + $2.40/needle etc = $10.40 x 14 = $145.60 to
> immunize staff.
>
> So now "profit" is under $1000.00.
>
> And I haven't included the "hassle" factor.....the inconvenience of having
> 1100 patients traipse through our office for flu-shots.
>
> Ed
>
>

Mark Probert

2004-10-22, 10:08 pm

What massive profits from vaccines are you talking about? Care to actually
document your claim?

"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:kvGdnRcsVuCdFOTcRVn-hg@golden.net...
> Why would you support the massive profits of the Pharm-vac companies when
> you know the vaccines are hurting people then?
>
> "Ed Mathes" <emathes@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:5E%dd.15877$JS4.2834@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
$$12606.00!![vbcol=seagreen]
> $2706.00
used[vbcol=seagreen]
having[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>

Mark Probert

2004-10-23, 2:08 am

john

2004-10-23, 11:09 am

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
> They are well aware that not all pneumonia is caused by influenza.
> However, good epidemiologic data (cited in my other posting) does give
> us an estimate of the percentage that are, which is where the 36,000
> figure comes from.
>
> PF

It's meant to deceive, and it does, just another lie from the vaccine liars

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:af50n0dejrponf7nrg5up2599r91mmev9u@4ax.com...
>36,000
>it
>it
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract
>
>I made no claim other than that, if the CDC is using the 65,984 number from
>that report, in finding the average deaths from influenza (as some of the
>other respondents seem to think they should), the CDC violates simple rules
>of logic.

But they don't, since 2002 was not an especially bad flu year, and
they report average deaths of 36,000 per year. In fact, I don't see
any post where anyone used the 65,984 number. The key facts page uses
the 36,000 number, and it took looking in the bibliography of another
report on the CDC site to find the paper from which that number was
taken. There was never any suggestion that the 65,984 number was
used; instead the original poster accused the CDC of contradicting
themselves by citing the 36000 number and then having only 753 in the
preliminary 2002 report.

>What was NOT stated in that report was that, of the 65,984 deaths
>resulting from "Influenza and pneumonia", all the cases of pneumonia were a
>direct result of the influenza.

No one, so far as I know has claimed that they were.

>So without that qualificaton, and since
>influenza is NOT the sole cause of pneumonia, it is, without question, a
>distortion of fact to then take that number, 65,984, and use it in finding
>average deaths caused by influenza.

Correct, but no one is doing so.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

JudeH

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

"Mark Probert" wrote in message news:<sNhed.49024$YM4.16976132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> What massive profits from vaccines are you talking about? Care to actually
> document your claim?
>
>

Just saw a commercial for RSV or (RV?) vaccination to protect infants
from mediummne. You think they are going to spend big bucks advertising
on TV if they don't expect a profit or return on the publicity.

Another interesting link is:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041005/chir..._vaccine_6.html

implies that flu vaccine does generate a significant profit
for a few companies as does flumist.

Anyway I sure know that these companies have big money to spend
on the media and are a lot happier when everybody gets their flu shot.

Mark Probert

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

"JudeH" <cmlinderquist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1260d733.0410230950.1bffb487@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:<sNhed.49024$YM4.16976132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
actually[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Just saw a commercial for RSV or (RV?) vaccination to protect infants
> from mediummne. You think they are going to spend big bucks advertising
> on TV if they don't expect a profit or return on the publicity.

Of course they expect something. However, you should post the actual
numbers. Read the link I posted below that shows just how minimally
profitable vaccines really are.

> Another interesting link is:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041005/chir..._vaccine_6.html
>
> implies that flu vaccine does generate a significant profit
> for a few companies as does flumist.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/flushot.asp

While not 100% on point, it is quite instructive to anyone who has an open
mind.

>
> Anyway I sure know that these companies have big money to spend
> on the media and are a lot happier when everybody gets their flu shot.

People who get the flu shot are happier, especially the ones who are still
here at the end of the flu season, and do not forget their families.

PF Riley

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

On 23 Oct 2004 10:50:27 -0700, cmlinderquist@hotmail.com (JudeH)
wrote:

>"Mark Probert" wrote in message news:<sNhed.49024$YM4.16976132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>Just saw a commercial for RSV or (RV?) vaccination to protect infants
>from mediummne. You think they are going to spend big bucks advertising
>on TV if they don't expect a profit or return on the publicity.

Synagis is not a vaccine, you idiot.

PF

Carey Gregory

2004-10-23, 7:10 pm

PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote:

>On 23 Oct 2004 10:50:27 -0700, cmlinderquist@hotmail.com (JudeH)
>wrote:
>
>
>Synagis is not a vaccine, you idiot.

No surprise there, but whether it's a vaccine or not, I'd like to know when
it became a requirement for the pharmaceutical industry to commit suicide by
providing products without expectation of profit. I wonder how these people
think drugs, vaccines, and medical devices would exist at all without a
profit incentive. The good fairy? The government? Magic?

And where's the outrage at Microsoft and Ford Motor Co. earning (gasp!)
profits?! And advertising on TV no less! It's outrageous, I tell you!

Mark

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

"john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message news:<cl000e$5uq$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> "PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
>
> Oh really, prove it, lets have the figures

Hey Halfwit! You've already been given a link. Grow some balls and
follow it, okay?:

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

Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with
influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA
2003;289:179-86.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/289/2/179.pdf

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

And if you want to dig a little deeper, go to PubMed or even your
local university library to see the abstract or the full article,
respectively.

But you won't. You are biased against vaccination in such a knee-jerk
manner that you won't even waste the keystrokes to go to
PubMed...afraid that you'll be disappointed by information that
doesn't support your point of view, or (more likely), that you won't
be able to understand what you read since it isn't in monosyllables.

Mark, MD (ALL my kids are fully immunized, and I don't lose a
moment's sleep worrying about it.)

Kurt Ullman

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

In article <iooln05ikjhg95sunrqvcstm69787qc8d1@4ax.com>, Carey
Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote:

>providing products without expectation of profit. I wonder how these people
>think drugs, vaccines, and medical devices would exist at all without a
>profit incentive. The good fairy?
>The government?
We Have a WINNAH!!!!
>

--

"Jesus was provided for by his Father.
I suspect the same is the case with many of those writing on the web."
-- Michael Mendelsohn on alt.journalism.freelance

00doc

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

JudeH wrote:
> "Mark Probert" wrote in
> message
> news:<sNhed.49024$YM4.16976132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

Mark is right - if vaccines in general tended to be big
money makers we wouldn't be seeing so many shortages. Surely
you don't think there are huge profits to be made and it is
just that no one wants to make them?

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just saw a commercial for RSV or (RV?) vaccination to
> protect infants
> from mediummne.

Rediculous! How can a vaccine protect someone from a large
corporation? :-)

> You think they are going to spend big bucks
> advertising
> on TV if they don't expect a profit or return on the
> publicity.

OK - sure - they are probably hoping to turn a profit from
this vaccine. it will still never be a big one by drug
company standards. Considering that the routine infant
vaccination schedule now calls for Hep B, DTaP, HiB, IPV,
Prevnar, MMR, and varicella vaccines - not to mention many
others for targetted groups - where are all the ads for
them?

--
00doc

Byron Canfield

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v6u7n0tcel0ihomkefihk6vr3dj3gtb9ik@4ax.com...
> "Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
or[vbcol=seagreen]
deprives[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Of course it deprives them of income, as David Wright pointed out. In
case
> you missed it, it goes like this: Doctors make money when their patients
> are sick. Vaccines prevent their patients from getting sick, yet doctors
> make almost nothing providing them.
>
> Well patients = less income. Duh.
>
a[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Oh please, not the AMA bogeyman! Yeah, doctors are so intimidated by the
> big, bad AMA that even on their deathbed they won't reveal the massive
> conspiracy. Right ho! Put that foil beanie back on before the
mind-control
> rays get you.
>
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> So what? Every industry on the planet that can get away with making
> proprietary products does so. Welcome to the world. Now, what does that
> have to do with vaccines?
>
>
> You swallow conspiracy theories without question even when they're full of
> blatantly obvious holes, yet you imagine that those who see the holes are
> the naive ones. How quaint....
>
Simply labeling something a "conspiracy theory" does not any any way mean
there is no conspiracy, despite your attempts to the contrary.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

"Mark" <mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5ee850fe.0410180901.7071587b@posting.google.com...
> "john" <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote in message
news:<cl000e$5uq$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
>
>
> Hey Halfwit! You've already been given a link. Grow some balls and
> follow it, okay?:
>
> ------------------
>
> Thompson WW, Shay DK, Weintraub E, et al. Mortality associated with
> influenza and respiratory syncytial virus in the United States. JAMA
> 2003;289:179-86.
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/289/2/179.pdf

Yeah, right -- the Journal of the American Medical Association, that, in
order to access, you have to pay for it.
>
> And if you want to dig a little deeper, go to PubMed or even your
> local university library to see the abstract or the full article,
> respectively.
>
> But you won't. You are biased against vaccination in such a knee-jerk
> manner that you won't even waste the keystrokes to go to
> PubMed...afraid that you'll be disappointed by information that
> doesn't support your point of view, or (more likely), that you won't
> be able to understand what you read since it isn't in monosyllables.
>
> Mark, MD (ALL my kids are fully immunized, and I don't lose a
> moment's sleep worrying about it.)

I see the knee-jerks coming from YOUR direction.

There is an interesting and most telling statement at the site for which Bob
provided the link ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5306a1.htm ):

" Influenza-related deaths can result from pneumonia as well as from
exacerbations of cardiopulmonary conditions and other chronic diseases.
Older adults account for >90% of deaths attributed to pneumonia and
influenza (1,50). In a recent study of influenza epidemics, approximately
19,000 influenza-associated pulmonary and circulatory deaths per influenza
season occurred during 1976--1990, compared with approximately 36,000 deaths
during 1990--1999 (1). Estimated rates of influenza-associated pulmonary and
circulatory deaths/100,000 persons were 0.4--0.6 among persons aged 0--49
years, 7.5 among persons aged 50--64 years, and 98.3 among persons aged >65
years. In the United States, the number of influenza-associated deaths might
be increasing in part because the number of older persons is increasing
(56). In addition, influenza seasons in which influenza A (H3N2) viruses
predominate are associated with higher mortality (57); influenza A (H3N2)
viruses predominated in 90% of influenza seasons during 1990--1999, compared
with 57% of seasons during 1976--1990 (1). "

* Not only EVERY reference in the paragaph, but every reference in the
entire document to fatalities, is to "influenza-RELATED" deaths, not
"influenza-CAUSED" deaths. The two are NOT equal, however much you might
like to believe it.

* The incidents of influenza-related deaths have INCREASED since the advent
of the flu vaccination.

* Less than 1 percent of influenza-related deaths afflicted those under age
49.

* Less than 10 percent afflicted those between 50 and 64.

* There is reasonable speculation that the increase is in part simply due to
the increase of people in those age brackets most affected, and therefore
that the percentage of influenza-related deaths for those age groups has NOT
increased. If proof of efficacy was to be offered, it would be that the
percentages in those age groups has reduced since the advent of the
vaccination -- a statistic remarkable absent from the document.

* On the flip side, it is speculated that a more virulent strain was
responsible for the higher mortality rate during the years from which the
average was taken, which raises the question of how likely it is that said
vaccinations can target the correct strain for any given "influenza
season" -- notably, last year, they failed miserably.

--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Byron Canfield

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:WJ_cd.10674$Rf1.9083@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <_pRcd.386094$mD.240822@attbi_s02>,
> Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>
> Aww, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

Not at all, little one.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:EL_cd.10675$Rf1.2391@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <%pRcd.386095$mD.185892@attbi_s02>,
> Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
reading[vbcol=seagreen]
or[vbcol=seagreen]
deprives[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Naive" is a good word to use about people who think the "AMA" is in a
> position to suppress anything.

They suppressed for a long time how certain limited application of alcohol
reduces risk of heart problems. It is only now that studies independent of
the AMA have managed to get past the AMA blockade in such a way that they
can no longer deny it that some doctors are willing to admit it.

The AMA is now lobbying with others to make over-the-counter vitamin
supplements illegal. If that isn't suppression, the word "suppression"
doesn't exist.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

PF Riley

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:13:56 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:
>
>Got news for ya, Sherlock -- the AMA is more of a trade union. It's
>not any sort of government agency, it has no police or enforcement
>powers, and over half of US doctors aren't AMA members.

The AMA is a convenient faceless, large entity that, to the
anti-vaccine paranoid, represents "The Establishment" to be feared.
Just like paranoid schizophrenics fear the CIA and the FBI.

PF

PF Riley

2004-10-23, 10:08 pm

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:27 GMT, "Byron Canfield"
<barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
>news:bmm6n0p2l3mmnp926elc2dhjll3ila96rt@4ax.com...
>
>I'm not in any way anti-vaccine, nor did I make any statement to that
>effect. I'm anti-scare-tactics.
>
>Perhaps you're too stupid to understand the difference?

Let's see... in this thread, you said that the CDC is lying by
distorting facts as part of a grand conspiracy to "follow the money"
and get more flu vaccine sold despite the fact that it's not
necessary, in order to maximize profits for pharmaceutical industries
to which they ordinarily would not be entitled, and that the AMA
"brands" people "crackpots" while suppressing evidence of non-medical
remedies, and that anyone who doubts this is naive.

Hardly sounds like you're "not in any way anti-vaccine."

PF

JudeH

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"Mark Probert" wrote in message news:<A1yed.51616$YM4.19727714@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> "JudeH" <cmlinderquist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1260d733.0410230950.1bffb487@posting.google.com...
> news:<sNhed.49024$YM4.16976132@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> actually
>
> Of course they expect something. However, you should post the actual
> numbers. Read the link I posted below that shows just how minimally
> profitable vaccines really are.
>
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/flushot.asp
>
> While not 100% on point, it is quite instructive to anyone who has an open
> mind.
>

The point is that a flu vaccine maker will lose a lot less money
if more people have the shot. With sales on the order of $400 million
and $100's of millions for flumist, they can easily afford
millions in advertising to push it in the media.

Maybe the media hysteria is created by the media itself. After
all, it's a good example of how the news stations are helping
the public. Maybe doctors don't want contagious patients with
the flu showing up in their office. Who knows.

Carey Gregory

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:

>That's what I said -- the "facts" as bandied about by the CDC are wrong as a
>result of failure to follow principles of logic (in restricting causality)
>to serve an agenda of engendering fear. And the cited link, cited, I might
>remind you, by SUPPORTERS of the CDCs position, show that very thing.

The facts appear to be correct and the CDC did not fail to follow principles
of logic. From the critique you offered, it seems apparent you don't know
how to interpret the article. Your attempt to make hay out of the term
"influenza-related" is a shining example.

Mark

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

PF Riley <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message news:<bkmln012jmh0qvle1iacf92l5bu5b653el@4ax.com>...
> On 23 Oct 2004 10:50:27 -0700, cmlinderquist@hotmail.com (JudeH)
> wrote:
>
>
> Synagis is not a vaccine, you idiot.
>
> PF

These people don't let knowledge or acumen get in the way of a good story, PF.

Mark, MD

PF Riley

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:17:09 +0000 (UTC), "john"
<nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote:
>
>"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
>
>It's meant to deceive, and it does, just another lie from the vaccine liars

And there you have it. You're an idiot, you're completely wrong, you
have nothing but baseless blind accusations to contradict the very
simple and logical explanation for the apparent discrepancy you think
you found, so you just say, "You're a liar" and post nothing more of
substance in response.

Moron.

PF

Byron Canfield

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:8ht3n0p9908lduoe07vmluars5dphgrlqt@4ax.com...
> No. If they assumed that you did, then they would be reporting over
> 60,000 deaths per year, since that is how many died of pneumonia or
> flu. But they know which pneumonia deaths are secondary complications
> of flu, and what other illness were secondary complications of flu as
> well. They just don't break it down that way in the one annual report
> that was cited.

But not ALL pneumonia deaths are secondary complications of flu -- THAT's my
point. Pneumonia is almost always a secondary complication, yes, but not
always of flu. There are many other conditions for which pneumonia is a
secondary complication.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:7tp3n0h4c8od2lfiv65q6cmk0fvbdria9g@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:24:40 GMT, wright@clam.prodigy.net (David
> Wright) wrote:
>
> In Washington state we give childhood vaccines supplied to us free by
> the state and charge nothing, except a $0.01 token administration fee.
>
> Oh, and we are giving purchased flu shots for free, too.
>
> Big profits for us.

And you wonder why there's not enough to go around? You think the
pharmaceutical companies are happy that you're not supporting the medical
industry?

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"David Wright" <wright@clam.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:skgcd.18038$Qv5.4751@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <IBccd.401756$Fg5.271605@attbi_s53>,
> Byron Canfield <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
years[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
restating[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
pharmaceutical[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Well, let's just do the math on that, shall we? There were supposed
> to be two companies each producing 50 million flu vaccine doses, which
> retail at $6 a pop, roughly. Now, that's $300 million in gross sales,
> but making vaccines isn't trivial, and the companies aren't getting $6
> per dose anyway. If they're getting $3, I'd be surprised.
>
> But let's suppose they are getting $3 per dose, or $150 million.
> That's a lot of money to you or me, but consider that Merck, which
> just pulled Vioxx from the shelves, was making $2.5 *billion* per year
> on it. (One of their 5 main sources of income.)
>
> So, I stand by my previous statement. If doctors really were trying
> to maximize profit, nobody would ever get a vaccine for anything.
> It's far more profitable to treat a sick patient than to make a few
> bucks on vaccinating one. And note that doctors in general don't do
> better than break-even on vaccines; the profit per dose is quite low.

I wasn't talking about the doctors, but since you are, the doctors get far
more than the $6 -- that's just what they charge for the material injected.
Many people that get the shots get them at a doctor's office, where they
ALSO pay for the visit (or the health insurance company does).

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:5s55n0130u50sohes4eemudv488fqcnoc4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:17:09 +0000 (UTC), "john"
> <nospamoridiots@vaccine.com> wrote:
liars[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> And there you have it. You're an idiot, you're completely wrong, you
> have nothing but baseless blind accusations to contradict the very
> simple and logical explanation for the apparent discrepancy you think
> you found, so you just say, "You're a liar" and post nothing more of
> substance in response.
>
> Moron.

You have provided nothing more conclusive than the original accusation --
just an arbitrary declaration of a percentage of pneumonia deaths caused by
flu. You supported none of your statements. How is that any less idiotic?

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

Byron Canfield

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:l5c3n05slaf0cu1vk8cimcag0frq2260qh@4ax.com...
> wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright) wrote:
>
>
> Sheesh.... There you go again, David, clouding a perfectly good
conspiracy
> theory with common sense.

So I suppose you also believe that corporations have your own best interest
at heart?

Talk about naive.

--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield

john

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:5s55n0130u50sohes4eemudv488fqcnoc4@4ax.com...

>
> And there you have it. You're an idiot, you're completely wrong, you
> have nothing but baseless blind accusations to contradict the very
> simple and logical explanation for the apparent discrepancy you think
> you found, so you just say, "You're a liar" and post nothing more of
> substance in response.
>
> Moron.
>

Give us the years they took the average from, I guess they took in the
Spanish Flu epidemic to get that average?

Carey Gregory

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

Gymmy Bob

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

Sorry. I do not read long posts with bottom posted responses.

"JudeH" <cmlinderquist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1260d733.0410171016.25131eeb@posting.google.com...
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:<6qCdnbKITIXd7OzcRVn-gQ@golden.net>...
wouldn't[vbcol=seagreen]
average.......approximately[vbcol=seagreen]
years[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
was[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
restating[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
bucks a[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> If you look at the data >90% of the deaths are for the elderly. Does
> this
> justify the media bombardment of 30,000 dead for the general
> population?
> Also , whose to say that those very ill patients who died of the Flu
> wouldn't have died in a year of something else anyway? Sure, make a
> recommendation
> for those at risk but don't use it as an excuse to create hysteria.
>
> Secondly what are the side effects of the vaccine? If 1 in 1000 kids
> are at risk for the flu, why expose the other 999 to the risk, such
> inreased risk of asthma for flumist.
>
> Regarding economics, there are 6 billion people in the world. If only
> 3 billion got vaccinated at $3 that's still a 10 billion market, more
> than enough reason for vaccine makers to push the media to make sure
> and get everyone vaccinated.

Bob LeChevalier

2004-10-24, 2:09 am

"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:8ht3n0p9908lduoe07vmluars5dphgrlqt@4ax.com...
>
>But not ALL pneumonia deaths are secondary complications of flu -- THAT's my
>point. Pneumonia is almost always a secondary complication, yes, but not
>always of flu. There are many other conditions for which pneumonia is a
>secondary complication.

I'm agreeing with you.

If they had made that sort of error, then they would have reported
60,000+ deaths per year from flu and not 36,000.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org