Lies, Damned Lies and CDC Autism Statistics
john
Mark Probert
> http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/mark-blaxill-lies-damned-lies-and-...
Blaxill was caught making a mistake and a blogger sent him a
correction by email. He refuses to publicly acknowledge his error and
post a correction.
Mike
Probey omits that the alleged error was not in the referred article
but in another one. (A typical ad hominem attack.) And what was it
about? The issue is how many millions of dollars did Paul Offit make
from Rotateq patent. Blaxill and Olmsted's estimate is 29,
the blogger's estimate is 6, and Offit himself would not disclose.
Does it matter? Not at all. For some, it does not matter because
"Rotateq made Offit a millionaire". For others, it does not matter
because there is nothing improper about becoming a millionaire.
So much for the alleged error.
Peter B
"Mike" <Mi...@none.xxx> wrote in message
news:hhenhm$s9o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
If this is all about the money, I did not read either article, then it
is a strawman argument at best.
I really don't care if someone makes 900 or 1 million as long as it is
honest money, nor should anyone else in the USA.
Peter Bowditch
Ah, but the problem here, you see, is that the university that Dr
Offitt works for has set rules for sharing any money that comes in
from licensing products developed at the institution. Dr Offitt was as
surprised as anyone when he was told that his share of the vaccine
came to a lot of money. Apparently it is a problem when Dr Offitt gets
some money but not a problem when Kevin Trudeau or Joe Mercola gets
money.
At least Dr Offitt told his employer about the vaccine he worked on
and didn't do fraudulent research to discredit existing vaccines in
order to create a market for his own product. That's only acceptable
when Dr Wakefield does it.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 7:42 pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/mark-blaxill-lies-damned-lies-and-...
>
> > Blaxill was caught making a mistake and a blogger sent him a
> > correction by email. He refuses to publicly acknowledge his error and
> > post a correction.
>
> >http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3896
>
> This is spin.
No, it is an accurate account of what happens when one challenges your
ilk. Like you do here.
> Probey omits that the alleged error was not in the referred article
> but in another one. (A typical ad hominem attack.) And what was it
> about? The issue is how many millions of dollars did Paul Offit make
> from Rotateq patent. Blaxill and Olmsted's estimate is 29,
> the blogger's estimate is 6, and Offit himself would not disclose.
The blogger used the proper formula, and Blaxill et al, refuse to post
a correction *as a correction*. If you read the entire article, you
would see that they have acknowledged that they were wrong.
> Does it matter? Not at all. For some, it does not matter because
> "Rotateq made Offit a millionaire". For others, it does not matter
> because there is nothing improper about becoming a millionaire.
I would agree with that last sentence. However, the anti-vaccination
liars do not "think" so. They "think" that making money is evil.
> So much for the alleged error.
So much for you ANALysis.
Mark Probert
> "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mike" <M...@none.xxx> wrote in message
PRE-cisely!
Peter B
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:3ivlj5dacbc0q8o9f...@4ax.com...
Oh, I see. Typical rules for working in an institution, except for the
sharing part. Usually you lose all the monies to a Univ or College and
just receive Kudo's for the money. Sounds like he was able to at least
receive part of it.
Mark Probert
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3ivlj5dacbc0q8o9f...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Mike" <M...@none.xxx> wrote in message
He received a significant sum, which, when you consider the number of
lives the RotaTEQ vaccine has saved in the 3rd world, and the
hospitalizations for dehydration here in the US, is a pittance.
You see, the anti-vax liars NEED Paul Offit to be their bogey man.
They are terrified of him since he speaks directly about their
nefarious tactics. He has had death threats and FBI protection in the
past. Blaxill, et al, need to portay him as evil, and making money is
one way. Of course, the HeadDrone of the Anti-Vax Collective, J.B.
Handley is rather wealthy himself. And, as Peter Bowditch pointed out,
Mercola and Kevin Trudeau are given a free pass. But, that is OK by
the anti-vaxxers.
dr_jeff
Not to mention the priceless lives saved every year, which makes
whatever he gets a small payment for what is done. In addition, I would
like to add that not only are many hospitalizations for dehydration
avoided, but so are many days missed from work by parents and many
hospital and doctor visits.
> You see, the anti-vax liars NEED Paul Offit to be their bogey man.
They need anyone they can get.
> They are terrified of him since he speaks directly about their
> nefarious tactics. He has had death threats and FBI protection in the
> past. Blaxill, et al, need to portay him as evil, and making money is
> one way. Of course, the HeadDrone of the Anti-Vax Collective, J.B.
> Handley is rather wealthy himself. And, as Peter Bowditch pointed out,
> Mercola and Kevin Trudeau are given a free pass. But, that is OK by
> the anti-vaxxers.
Not by those in the know.
Mark Probert
He makes their perfect bogey man.
> > They are terrified of him since he speaks directly about their
> > nefarious tactics. He has had death threats and FBI protection in the
> > past. Blaxill, et al, need to portay him as evil, and making money is
> > one way. Of course, the HeadDrone of the Anti-Vax Collective, J.B.
> > Handley is rather wealthy himself. And, as Peter Bowditch pointed out,
> > Mercola and Kevin Trudeau are given a free pass. But, that is OK by
> > the anti-vaxxers.
>
> Not by those in the know.-
Anti-vaxxers, by definition, are not in the know.
PeterB - Original
Good answer.
PeterB - Original
>
> >"Mike" <M...@none.xxx> wrote in message
What makes you think Offitt was "as surprised as anyone" when he
became a multi-millionaire?
> At least Dr Offitt told his employer about the vaccine he worked on
> and didn't do fraudulent research to discredit existing vaccines in
> order to create a market for his own product. That's only acceptable
> when Dr Wakefield does it.
So you are claiming that Offit got rich by accident and his promotion
of vaccine is pure as the driven snow. Were you by chance able to
capture that little tooth fairy on film?
Mark Probert
He promotes vaccines because, as an infectious disease expert, he has
seen what diseases can do and wants to prevent that. He fully
understands the physiology of the immune system, and is not afraid to
speak his mind.
No, he did not get rich by accident. He worked very hard to do so, and
that makes it fully justified.
I see nothing wrong with his developing RotaTEQ and promoting its use.
Do you?
PeterB - Original
> "Mike" <M...@none.xxx> wrote in message
A lot of "honest" money is made unethically, however. What about
money made doing things that harm people while being perfectly legal.
What about God's laws, which you say you believe in?
PeterB - Original
markey, no one *fully* understands the physiology of the immune
system. If anybody had such knowledge, he would have gotten three
Nobel prizes, two in economics.
> , and is not afraid to
> speak his mind.
You aren't afraid to speak your "mind," but what has anyone got to
show for it? Nothing. Because nothing can be derived from nothing.
> No, he did not get rich by accident. He worked very hard to do so, and
> that makes it fully justified.
In the eyes of Man.
> I see nothing wrong with his developing RotaTEQ and promoting its use.
> Do you?
You already know the answer to that.
dr_jeff
We don't *fully* understand the physics of fire. Yet, we still put water
on fires. We don't *fully* understand how our digestive system works,
yet we still operate on people with appendicitis. We don't *fully*
understand fluid dynamics, yet we still have people fly around the sky.
Mark Probert
OK, delete fully. However, he has an experts knowledge of the immune
system.
If anybody had such knowledge, he would have gotten three
> Nobel prizes, two in economics.
>
> > , and is not afraid to
> > speak his mind.
>
> You aren't afraid to speak your "mind," but what has anyone got to
> show for it? Nothing. Because nothing can be derived from nothing.
You are the expert on nothing.
> > No, he did not get rich by accident. He worked very hard to do so, and
> > that makes it fully justified.
>
> In the eyes of Man.
And those who are alive because of his vaccine.
> > I see nothing wrong with his developing RotaTEQ and promoting its use.
> > Do you?
>
> You already know the answer to that.-
So, you oppose living children.
PeterB - Original
Well, responding to you I'd have to be.
> > > No, he did not get rich by accident. He worked very hard to do so, and
> > > that makes it fully justified.
>
> > In the eyes of Man.
>
> And those who are alive because of his vaccine.
No Data + No Facts = No Proof of Claim.
> > > I see nothing wrong with his developing RotaTEQ and promoting its use.
> > > Do you?
>
> > You already know the answer to that.-
>
> So, you oppose living children.
Wrong, I oppose bogus interventions that sometimes do great harm.
Jan Drew
Paul Offit.
Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital
of
Philadelphia, who was a committee member until last month. At the
same
time, he shared a patent for another rotavirus vaccine. Merck has
funded Offit's research for 13 years.
Merck bought and delivers copies of Offit's book, "What Every Parent
Should Know About Vaccines," to American doctors. The book has a list
price of $14.95.
"I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this
vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make
money off of that," Offit said.
Republican staff on the House Government Reform Committee looked into
the CDC panel that recommended the vaccination. Their August 2001
report found that "four out of eight CDC advisory committee members
who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June
1998
had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing
different versions of the vaccine."
And now the GOOD news!!
The CDC said that in October 2002 it adopted new guidelines for
participating on that advisory committee that in the future will
preclude people with conflicts like Offit's from sitting on the
committee.
Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons
received a
vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers
for
Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious
diarrhea.
Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed
emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were
folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine
caused
Chaise's problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents,
the
CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination -- not because of
the
problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give
vaccines in
general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press
International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines
recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency
and the
companies that make vaccines."
- Mark Benjamin, United Press International, UPI Investigates: The
Vaccine
Conflict
There are few parents of young children today who remember the
disastrous
introduction of the first Rotavirus vaccine in June, 1998 and its
withdrawal
from the market due to adverse events only 13 months later. Of course,
the
parents of children who experienced severe bowel intussusception, like
the
child described in UPI's investigative piece quoted above, remember
it all
too well.
The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it
triggered a
Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the
Committee on
Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled,
Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).
And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional
report's
criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.
Continue reading "Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
(1998-2003)" �
Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry
Lie
There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr.
Paul
Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers
for
Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other
parties who
have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The
problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it
has had
enough to eat, and it always needs more food.
It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more
frequency
lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter
and
fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many
people
need this lie to be true.
Like many lies, this one has evolved. The lie-tellers used to tell
half-truths, but they seem to have abandoned the half-truths and just
gone
for the big, big lie. That's how hungry a lie tends to get. Don't feed
me
half-truths, the lie screams, feed me lies!
Like other very big lies, this one retains a lot of credibility with
people
who have a lot of credibility. And, we have seen this movie before,
whether
it's Colin Powell blessing the presence of WMDs in Iraq or the SEC
blessing
the trading prowess of Bernie Madoff. We know how the movie ends.
Stephen Greenspan, a psychologist and expert on gullibility, explains
this
recurrent experience of smart people falling for big, hungry lies as
due to
"the tendency of humans to model their actions-especially when dealing
with
matters they don't fully understand-on the behavior of other humans."
Continue reading "Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.:
Feeding
a Hungry Lie" �
By J.B. Handley
In March of 2007 I wrote an essay titled "Bernie Versus Bryna, the
Trouble
with Autism Speaks" that was widely circulated on the web (full text
at the
end of this post). At the end of the letter, I encouraged parents to
write
Autism Speaks directly to express their frustration with the
organization's
direction.
Continue reading "Best of: Bernie vs. Brynna The Trouble with Autism
Speaks" �
Critic say the conflicts of interest of Dr Paul Offit while sitting
on the advisory panel could not be more blatant. He was part of the
team that mandated the use of the RotaVirus vaccine, even though he
received a $350,000 grant from Merck to develop the vaccine, shared
the patent, and was paid to go around the country teaching doctors
that vaccines were safe, according to the Wall Street Journal.
UPI discovered that Merck also had bought and distributed copies of a
book written by Dr Offit titled, "What Every Parent Should Know About
Vaccines," to physicians with a Dear Doctor letter that stated:"Merck
Vaccine Division is pleased to present you with a copy of the recent
publication, 'What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines.'"
"The authors designed the book," Merck's letter told doctors, "to
answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel
misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public
media."
The book had a list price of $14.95, and Dr Offit told UPI that he did
not know how many copies Merck had purchased.
In 2001, Congressman Burton's investigation also found conflicts of
interest with the then chairman of the advisory panel, Dr John Modlin,
a Professor at Dartmouth Medical School, who owned $26,000 worth of
Merck stock.
In a phone interview in 2003, Dr Modlin told UPI that he had sold the
Merck stock, but that he had recently agreed to chair a committee to
oversee Merck vaccine clinical trials.
"Meeting transcripts over the past decade," UPI says, "showed that at
some meetings, half of the members present had potential conflicts
with vaccine manufacturers."
For instance, at a June 2002 meeting, four of the 11 members on the
panel acknowledged conflicts with Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck,
Pfizer, Aventis Pasteur, and Bayer. Two of the four conducted research
or vaccine trials and one member was a co-holder of a patent.
The agency is currently facing a major credibility crisis over the
issue of whether vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative,
thimerosal, are responsible for the epidemic of neurological disorders
ranging from ADHD to autism in children all across the country.
The CDC is being accused of research manipulation and cover-ups of
vaccine maker culpability by an ever increasing number of activist
groups and is also facing tough questions from some of the powerful
members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats alike.
The CDC continues to claim that there is no evidence to support a
connection between the epidemic and thimerosal, which they say is no
longer used in most pediatric vaccines.
It is however, included in the flu vaccine currently recommended for
all pregnant women and children more than 6 months old.
Earlier this year, a group of lawmakers initiated a new investigation
of the matter and basically directed the CDC to butt out. On February
22, 2006, they stated in a letter: "If the federal government is going
to have a study whose results will be broadly accepted, such a study
cannot be led by the CDC," in a letter to Dr David Schwartz, Director
of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
The letter was signed by Senators, Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) and Debbie
Stabenow (D-Mich), and members of the House Representatives including,
Dr Dave Weldon, (R-Fla) Chris Smith, (R-NJ), Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY),
Dan Burton, (R-Ind), Joseph Crowley, (D-NY), and Maurice Hinchey, (D-
NY).
The Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is part of the National
Institutes of Health, and was asked to convene a panel to decide how
to analyze the CDC database to determine whether autism rates have
dropped since thimerosal was removed from most vaccines.
The controversy picked up traction in April, "National Autism Month,"
when world renowned heavy metal experts, researchers, and physicians
traveled to Washington and rallied on Capital Hill moving the debate
beyond just the parents of autistic children.
This spring, a full-page ad appeared in USA Today, the most widely-
circulated newspaper in the US, and accused the CDC of "causing an
epidemic of autism" by recommending that kids receive a series of
vaccinations that contained thimerosal at least as late as 2001.
The ad quoted one of the most recent and famous advocates to join the
cause, environmental lawyer, Robert F Kennedy Jr, as saying: "It's
time for the CDC to come clean with the American public."
The ad was funded by a coalition of advocacy groups led by Generation
Rescue, and directed readers to the web site, www.PutChildren
First.org, to view internal CDC documents, many of which were obtained
under the FOIA, that includes transcripts of meetings and e-mails that
the groups contend support their allegations of a CDC cover-up.
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
By J.B. Handley
> PRE-cisely!
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
Jan Drew
Paul Offit. Liar with vested interest in vaccines.
Jan Drew
Posted off topic.
Mark Probert
I have previously posted the statistics about the RotaTEQ vaccine.
Look it up.
> > > > I see nothing wrong with his developing RotaTEQ and promoting its use.
> > > > Do you?
>
> > > You already know the answer to that.-
>
> > So, you oppose living children.
>
> Wrong, I oppose bogus interventions that sometimes do great harm.-
Yes, you oppose living children.
Mark Probert
> On Dec 28, 8:23 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:42 pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/mark-blaxill-lies-damned-lies-and-...
>
> > Blaxill was caught making a mistake and a blogger sent him a
> > correction by email. He refuses to publicly acknowledge his error and
> > post a correction.
>
> >http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3896
>
> Paul Offit.
>
> Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital
> of
> Philadelphia, who was a committee member until last month. At the
> same
> time, he shared a patent for another rotavirus vaccine. Merck has
> funded Offit's research for 13 years.
>
> Merck bought and delivers copies of Offit's book, "What Every Parent
> Should Know About Vaccines," to American doctors. The book has a list
> price of $14.95.
How much does Dr Offit get per copy? Does JP Handley know? No, he does
not.
> "I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this
> vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make
> money off of that," Offit said.
Where did he say this? JP Handley does not know, otherwise he would
cite it. Offit probably never said it.
> Republican staff on the House Government Reform Committee looked into
> the CDC panel that recommended the vaccination. Their August 2001
> report found that "four out of eight CDC advisory committee members
> who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June
> 1998
> had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing
> different versions of the vaccine."
Did Offit vote on this? Even Handley does not have the balls to say he
did. He is using rhetoric to imply it, but cannot prove it.
> And now the GOOD news!!
>
> The CDC said that in October 2002 it adopted new guidelines for
> participating on that advisory committee that in the future will
> preclude people with conflicts like Offit's from sitting on the
> committee.
Offit never voted on anything where he had a financial interest. JB
Handley knows this, as he has been repeatedly told it, and he still
lies.
> There are few parents of young children today who remember the
> disastrous
> introduction of the first Rotavirus vaccine in June, 1998 and its
> withdrawal
> from the market due to adverse events only 13 months later. Of course,
> the
> parents of children who experienced severe bowel intussusception, like
> the
> child described in UPI's investigative piece quoted above, remember
> it all
> too well.
Dr Offit was not involved in that. Period.
> The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it
> triggered a
> Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the
> Committee on
> Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled,
> Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).
>
> And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional
> report's
> criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.
That is a lie.
>
> Continue reading "Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years
> (1998-2003)"
>
> Tayloe, Offit, Minshew, Katz, Snyderman, et. al.: Feeding a Hungry
> Lie
Anyone who Handley does not like. Snyderman is Nancy Snyderman, the
physician who reports on medical matters for the Today show, while
maintaining a private practice.
> There is a very, very hungry lie, and the lie needs more food. Dr.
> Paul
> Offit is this lie's public chef, but it also gets fed by the Centers
> for
> Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other
> parties who
> have a vested interest in protecting our current vaccine program. The
> problem with a lie as big as this one is that it never knows when it
> has had
> enough to eat, and it always needs more food.
>
> It's a simple lie, really. And, it's being told with more and more
> frequency
> lately, which is really no surprise. Lies like this tend to get fatter
> and
> fatter and hungrier and hungrier before they explode, and many, many
> people
> need this lie to be true.
Yes, there is a lie, and it is propagated by Handley and Jan Drew.
treet Journal.
>
> UPI discovered that Merck also had bought and distributed copies of a
> book written by Dr Offit titled, "What Every Parent Should Know About
> Vaccines," to physicians with a Dear Doctor l
> "The authors designed the book," Merck's letter told doctors, "to
> answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel
> misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public
> media."
>
> The book had a list price of $14.95, and Dr Offit told UPI that he did
> not know how many copies Merck had purchased.
Correct. The fact is, it is an excellent book, well documented and an
easy read for parents.
> The letter was signed by Senators, Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) and Debbie
> Stabenow (D-Mich), and members of the House Representatives including,
> Dr Dave Weldon, (R-Fla) Chris Smith, (R-NJ), Carolyn Maloney, (D-NY),
> Dan Burton, (R-Ind), Joseph Crowley, (D-NY), and Maurice Hinchey, (D-
> NY).
WOW. What a colection of nuts. Especially Burton and Maloney.
>
> This spring, a full-page ad appeared in USA Today, the most widely-
> circulated newspaper in the US, and accused the CDC of "causing an
> epidemic of autism" by recommending that kids receive a series of
> vaccinations that contained thimerosal at least as late as 2001.
Handley, using his millions, bought the ad. Somehow, he forgot to
mention that.
> The ad quoted one of the most recent and famous advocates to join the
> cause, environmental lawyer, Robert F Kennedy Jr, as saying: "It's
> time for the CDC to come clean ...
Kennedy is a jerk, was rejected for EPA chief, and knows even less
science than Jan.
Mike
> On Dec 30, 12:13 am, Mike <M...@none.xxx> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 7:42 pm, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/mark-blaxill-lies-damned-lies-and-...
>>> Blaxill was caught making a mistake and a blogger sent him a
>>> correction by email. He refuses to publicly acknowledge his error and
>>> post a correction.
>>> http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=3896
>> This is spin.
>
> No, it is an accurate account of what happens when one challenges your
> ilk. Like you do here.
>
>> Probey omits that the alleged error was not in the referred article
>> but in another one. (A typical ad hominem attack.) And what was it
>> about? The issue is how many millions of dollars did Paul Offit make
>> from Rotateq patent. Blaxill and Olmsted's estimate is 29,
>> the blogger's estimate is 6, and Offit himself would not disclose.
>
> The blogger used the proper formula, and Blaxill et al, refuse to post
> a correction *as a correction*. If you read the entire article, you
> would see that they have acknowledged that they were wrong.
>
You lie. They did not. And the blogger does not say they did.
They acknowledged only that their estimate is disputed
but because it is at most "a distinction without a difference"
they were not going to act.
>> Does it matter? Not at all. For some, it does not matter because
>> "Rotateq made Offit a millionaire". For others, it does not matter
>> because there is nothing improper about becoming a millionaire.
>
> I would agree with that last sentence. However, the anti-vaccination
> liars do not "think" so. They "think" that making money is evil.
You lie again. Here are the related excerpts from Blaxill/Olmsted
(no doubt you count them among so called "anti-vaccination liars"):
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented
innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP�s patents
raises concerns over Offit�s use of his former position on the CDC�s
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market
for rotavirus vaccine -- to effectively vote himself rich.
<...>
Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood
vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of
an appointed body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP). In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market
for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a
matter of months. For example, after ACIP approved the addition of
Merck�s (and Offit�s) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood vaccination
schedule, Merck�s Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of
2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> So much for the alleged error.
>
> So much for you ANALysis.
>
The blogger did not dispute the main point - that Offit
"voted himself rich". His concern was: how rich.