The Real Health Care Scare

In all of the white-hot vitriol being spewed over a national health care plan, very little attention is being directed at the pharmaceutical companies and the potential conflicts of interest involving the doctors doing their research. In America, we are generally of the belief that by the time a drug or vaccine has made it into the marketplace there has been enough testing conducted by the FDA and objective physicians and researchers that we can trust its safety. Frequently, we are wrong. Great profit tempts drug manufacturers to deceive or cut corners to get more quickly to the market. Pfizer recently agreed to pay $2.3 billion in fines as a penalty for marketing drugs "off label," which means for other than their prescribed purpose. Merck, too, has a $4.85 billion legal settlement for Vioxx, a painkiller that doubled the risk of stroke and heart attack, and Eli Lilly agreed to almost $1.5 billion in penalties for illegal marketing of its top-selling anti-psychotic drug. .

Those numbers may look big but they are nothing compared to revenues. Pfizer earned $44.2 billion last year and can handily absorb the penalty. Industry experts don't expect the off label marketing to end because the profitability is so great. With this kind of money at stake, willful deception with off label marketing, and a public record of failure, why are we so inclined to readily accept drugs and vaccines from these manufacturers?

As autumn approaches, we are once more being whipped into a frenzy about H1N1 and a need for another vaccination. Imagine the profits if only it were government mandated. I am not anti-vaccine. I am, however, pro-full disclosure. Vaccinations are one of the most important advancements in medical history. Nonetheless, when they became huge profit centers, the numbers of vaccines on the schedule for our children rose to the point where there are now 42 recommended and, in many cases, most are required for admission to public school facilities. Because we are inclined to trust our physicians and federal regulators, we generally take the needle.

But we need to look more closely. The internecine relationships between drug companies and researchers and their institutions deserve constant scrutiny. As an example, the highest-profile proponent of vaccines like the MMR for children, Dr. Paul Offit has been made a wealthy man by Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures MMR. Offit did not conduct the research on the MMR (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) vaccine but sold a patent to Merck for a vaccine against rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where Offit works, sold its royalty rights on the vaccine, which, according to a financial analyst firm's filing, netted the hospital $153 million. Based on hospital distribution guidelines, Offit, as the inventor, appears to have earned as much as $45 million for his 30 percent share.

The details of Dr. Offit's fiduciary interest in Merck are never disclosed when he is out pushing the safety of MMR, one of the company's biggest profit centers. Although the hospital appears to have taken its royalty in a lump payment from a company that purchases long term drug royalties and Offit is not known to be in the midst of a Merck revenue stream, his opinion can hardly be considered unbiased when speaking about the company's MMR product. None of this is ever disclosed when the media frequently run to interview Offit as a vaccine expert on MMR. In fact, during a recent broadcast on NBC Dateline, "A Dose of Controversy," it was the first time Offit was asked in an interview about the millions he had earned on his rotavirus vaccine royalty. However, no mention was made of Merck by either NBC's Matt Lauer or Offit.

Offit readily agreed to do the interview with Lauer because the program was centered on Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research regarding a possible link between MMR and the onset of autism in some children. He had refused, however, to sit for an interview with CBS News when Sharyll Attkisson was preparing a report about the relationships between pharmaceutical firms and researchers. (Offit said publicly that his email correspondences with Attkisson convinced him she was not going to do a balanced story. Later, on a friendly web site, he called her a liar.) As chief of infectious diseases at CHOP and a professor of pediatrics at University of Pennsylvania's medical school, Offit has credibility but rarely is anyone aware of the financial role Merck has played in his life. In fact, even the $1.5 million Paul Offit research chair at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is funded by Merck. In other words, he is entirely beholden to the company.

Offit was also in the enviable position of voting himself wealthy while serving on the government's Advisory Committee on Vaccine Practices (ACVP). He voted to approve the inclusion of his rotavirus vaccine in the Vaccines for Children Program, which, ultimately led to the widespread distribution of the Rotateq patent he developed at CHOP. When the big royalty check arrived Offit was quoted as saying, "It felt like winning the lottery." While dehydration through diarrhea is undoubtedly a big problem in developing countries, how essential is it that such a vaccine be included for every single child in the US schedule and millions spent on its administration?

Technically, Offit appears to meet the letter of the law and basic ethical standards with his disclosures. Before the ACVP meetings, he acknowledged a $350,000 grant from Merck to conduct the rotavirus research and that he was working "as a consultant to Merck." The compounding failure belongs to the media, which runs to Offit as the consistent pro-vaccine voice without ever acknowledging or writing about his Merck-generated wealth. Offit is allowed to call other researchers ethically conflicted without being confronted over his own relationships with the manufacturer of MMR.

On Dateline and in his lectures and publications, Offit dismissed Dr. Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper on potential links between autism and bowel issues (possibly prompted by MMR) because he said Wakefield was conflicted by being a medical expert for a law firm looking at the issue for potential litigation. Physicians are constantly retained to provide medical expertise for law firms and the only ethical question is disclosure. Wakefield has documentation showing his relationship with the law firm was disclosed to the Lancet well before publication as well as in communications with the Royal Free Hospital where he worked, and in articles in the news media

The Lancet paper that Offit has vilified was nothing more than an analysis of a collection of data from children being admitted to Royal Free with bowel problems. Drs. John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, some of the pre-eminent gastroenterologists in the world, were encountering children whose bowel inflammation occurred weeks after their MMR vaccinations and were then followed by regression into autism. Their data was provided to Wakefield and led to the 1998 Lancet paper. Wakefield had the temerity to suggest that there might be an association between bowel disease, autism, and MMR and called for further studies, a logical rather than audacious proposition.

In "A Dose of Controversy," Lauer said Wakefield's research had never been duplicated and that epidemiological studies had proved there was no association between the MMR vaccine and autism. Both statements are incorrect. Because I am involved as an advocate of research and Wakefield's point of view, I was present when NBC's producer was provided five papers from researchers and institutions in Canada, Italy, the US, and Venezuela where the bowel disease-autism link was confirmed and there was further description of the disease's pattern. NBC failed to cite that research while giving complete credibility to Offit and the epidemiologic research, which has endured significant criticism. Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institutes of Health and member of the Institute of Medicine, acknowledged on the program that it was possible the population samples were too small in the epidemiological studies Offit and others are using to dismiss Wakefield's work.

Mainstream medicine, of course, can be wrong, as Merck and Pfizer and Eli Lilly have proved. Wakefield's outrageous act is to demand safety studies on MMR and other vaccines. Most Americans are undoubtedly unaware that there has never been a long-term study conducted on MMR to compare a vaccinated population of children with an unvaccinated population. If Offit is a researcher of the most rigorous discipline, he would be leading the call for such a study using his rather large media megaphone. However, he told Jim Moody, legal counsel for the National Autism Associations that such a study is "impossible prospectively and unethical retrospectively." Actually, it seems unethical not to do such a study to prove conclusively a vaccine like MMR is safe to give to our children and our government clearly is aware of this failing. A media strategy document from the Center for Disease Control makes the sad confession that the government does not actually have the science to prove that vaccines are safe. Undoubtedly, that has much to do with why anyone who questions MMR or other vaccines is dismissed as an "anti-vaccine nut." Research costs money and takes time and is likely to make people question the shots being given to their children.

Nothing, of course, matters but the science. Unfortunately, when it is finally done, the truth it provides will arrive many years too late for millions of families. They erroneously placed their trust in our government's policies and the physicians and researchers that were supposed to "first do no harm.".

Also at www.moorethink.com.

Follow James Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/moorethink

Comments

[JohnDanStone]

For some reason several attempts to post in reply to White&Nerdy on the subject of Wakefield and Cochrane have not taken - we have, however, thrashed this out recently in a LA Times blog:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/08/bringing-science-back-into-americas-sphere-hits-a-nerve-.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a5984c0e970c#comment-6a00d8341c630a53ef0120a5984c0e970c

Cochrane, in fact supports Wakefield's criticisms of Madsen:

“The interpretation of the study by Madsen was made difficult by the unequal length of follow up for younger cohort members as well as the use of the date of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms of autism”. (Re: Madsen 2002) ie they didn't collect full autism data for the MMR group.

and the abstract conclusion is very different to the doublespeak of "the plain language summary" which was fed to journalists:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

So, in other word the policy should continue despite the absence of convincing safety studies.

White&Nerdy knows this but apparently hopes that readers will walk away having only examined the plain language summmary at the top.

John Stone, Contributing editor www.ageofautism.com

[WhiteandNerdy]

3 of 3 The significance.
The fact that you have completely misunderstood the Cochrane review is no big deal--everyone makes mistakes.
In this case you choose to play an intellectual game even though you weren't holding any cards--this is very unwise.
The much bigger issue is Wakefield's behavior.
He runs a business transferring money from parents of kids with autism into his own pocket.
He really should understand the Cochrane review.
His personal attack on Offit was illiterate and immoral.
And Wakefield's incompetent and unethical misrepresentation of the Cochrane review was criticized by the Cochrane authors more than 5 years ago. They pointed out that Wakefield's work lacks controls--a scientific error that insults the intelligence of our 12 year-old.

How can you possibly support such a person?
How can you possibly believe that Wakefield's actions are anything more than a business strategy?

[JohnDanStone]

White&Nerdy

I don't know that you have earned the right to call anyone else illiterate.

You don't (as usual) give reference to your claim about Cochrane, however, the Wakefield, Lancet 1998 paper was a case series study which would not have by its nature a control group. I don't know whether the Cochrane authors discussed this anywhere as limitation of the study - which was not and was never intended to be epidemiological - but it was not an error in its design or conduct.

[WhiteandNerdy]

2 of 3 The freebee
Here is a link to the paper: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/cochrane.pdf
First, it should be obvious to you that there has never been a perfect study and that all studies have limitations and weakness.
Now please read the methods section.
The search found 5,000 articles
The screening narrowed it down to 139 studies
After they excluded the poor quality studies they were left with the 31 studies discussed in the article.

Did you follow that?
In order to be discussed in the review, a study had to pass the quality inclusion criteria otherwise it was excluded from discussion.

Yes, they mention weakness of these high quality studies--big whoopee do!
When you quote these weaknesses as evidence that the studies are poor, all you are doing is demonstrating your total failure to understand the information.
" Low risk of bias evidence did not support a causal association with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or autism."
If you honestly can't understand that in the above quote Cochrane is explicitly stating that high quality data is contrary to the idea that MMR causes autism then you need to stop posting on this subject.

[JohnDanStone]

For instance, about the Fombonne 2001 Cochrane states:

“The number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results is impossible”.

(BTW it says "difficult" in the main text but "impossible" in the notes.) So your hypothesis that the reviewed studies were of adequate standard fails. They are stating that this study is completely useless. "Difficult to interpret" was also a phrase they used about Madsen.

Yes, Cochrane had one study GI which actually liked (mark you just one), but they didn't consider funding issues - this one was conducted and funded by the CDC.

[WhiteandNerdy]

1 of 3 JohnDanStone,
Thank you for the link. I hadn't noticed any activity in a while and I thought that folks had lost interest.
Interesting how you choose to ignore the outright fabrications used to attack Offit, or Wakefield's untrue statements.
One important issue here is that research statisticians spend something like 9 or more years in training. It really should be obvious that someone that doesn't know statistics is probably going to fail miserably if they attempt to interpret information that they don't understand.
From your comments, you clearly have completely and totally failed to understand the methods, results, discussion, and conclusion of the Cochrane paper. Unsurprisingly you have come to absurd and obviously incorrect conclusions.
You get one freebee--I will walk you through the paper--after this please don't try to interpret information when you are totally lost.

[JohnDanStone]

White&Nerdy

With regard to Richard Horton's allegations, he should certainly have checked the Lancet's records before making them, first before the media in February 2004 and then under oath in August 2007:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/smoke-and-mirrors-dr-richard-horton-and-the-wakefield-affair.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/the-last-day-of-andrew-wakefields-defence-at-the-general-medical-council.html

He also failed to mention that his own boss was a director of GSK:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/brian-deer-and-the-davis-brothers.html

John Stone, Contributing editor www.ageofautism.com

[WhiteandNerdy]

Hi JohnDanStone,
Again it is interesting how you ignore so many issues, but if this is what you wish to discuss...­so be it
Moore's article is about ethics.
Wakefield claims he disclose his relationship. Horton basically came out and said Wakefield was lying.
Ethically speaking, at the very least Moore should have stated that there is disagreement on this issue.
Luckily we can easily figure this out.
Here again is the instructions from the Lancet:
"The Editor needs to be informed [of any conflicts of interest] and will discuss with you [the authors] whether or not disclosure in the journal is necessary. All sources of funding must be disclosed, as an acknowledgment in the text."

Did you follow that? All sources of funding must be disclosed, as an acknowledgment in the text. That is very, very clear--no possible misunderstanding.

Now we all check our copies of Wakefield's paper read the acknowledgment section and.....no mention in the paper of funding from the lawyers.
Wow, that was easy.

[WhiteandNerdy]

1 of 4--the starting point
Hi James Moore,
Thank you for an interesting and provocative article.
It would have been helpful if you had started by defining conflicts of interest and explaining the ethics of dealing with them. There does seem to be a lot of confusion on this issue.
Also, ethically speaking it would have been helpful if you provided
references to support your assertions and if you demonstrated a good faith
effort to verify information.

It helps to start with the foundation, get the facts right and build from there.

[WhiteandNerdy]

2 of 3 Offit
A minor point:
You claim that he could have received as much as $45 million. Seemingly from a Feb09 article on Age of Autism.
Unsurprisingly they get the basic facts wrong and come to a ridiculously
inflated estimate as to his earnings.
Here is their source: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/chop-contract.pdf
Please read it.
His actual earnings from the patent sale are widely discussed, there is no revenue stream from Merck, and his financial gain from the patent have been reported in the media, and the 350K grant did not go to Offit...et­c.
He made millions from the patent, but no one is served by this misinformation.
A much bigger point:
You wrote: "Offit was also in the enviable position of voting himself
wealthy while serving on the government's Advisory Committee on Vaccine
Practices (ACVP). He voted to approve the inclusion of his rotavirus
vaccine in the Vaccines for Children Program, which, ultimately led to the
widespread distribution of the Rotateq patent he developed at CHOP."
This simply isn't true.
Here are the votes with the discussion:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/ACIP/downloads/min-feb06.rtf
You will not that Offit did not vote in either occasion. Not too
surprising since he hadn't been on the committee for about 3 years.

The reality is that the folks that claim vaccines cause autism simply can't
win with the truth so they resort to making up personal attacks.

[WhiteandNerdy]

3 of 4 Wakefield.
You are very quick to accept Wakefield's assertion that he disclosed his
relationship with the law firm to the Lancet prior to publication.
But you failed to mention that the Lancet Editor has rejected this assertion, questioned
Wakefield's veracity, and pointed out that Wakefield explicitly claimed
that no conflict of interest existed whereas we all now know that in truth
he was working with lawyers on for a lawsuit.
Here is 1998 Lancet instruction to authors: "In 1998, The Lancet required
that: "The Editor needs to be informed [of any conflicts of interest] and
will discuss with you [the authors] whether or not disclosure in the
journal is necessary. All sources of funding must be disclosed, as an
acknowledgment in the text." But they weren't disclosed.

The ethical issue isn't that he worked for lawyers, the issue is that
according to the Lancet he lied about it.

[JohnDanStone]

The actual problem here is that Wakefield has no written evidence that he discussed this with the Lancet, but he has uncovered a stack of documentary evidence that they knew and that much of the relevant correspondence had passed through the editor's hands - so the question is whether they thought a declaration was necessary or advisable. Traditionally an expert is not held to have bias - this defence, for example, was used by Elizabeth Miller from the other side of the case when it was pointed out that she had not disclosed:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7438/528#75516

The Lancet's editor consistently failed to disclose that his own boss - Crispin Davis, CEO of Reed Elsevier - was on the board of GSK. Davis also did not tell the House of Commons this when interviewed about Wakefield by the Science or Technology Committee, or that his brother Sir Nigel Davis was the High Court judge who had just upheld the Legal Services Commission decision to withold funding from the MMR case:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/brian-deer-and-the-davis-brothers.html

Well, White&Nerdy, how fastidious are you now?

[WhiteandNerdy]

1 of 2 Hi JohnDanStone,
I guess you missed the posting above. Here is what Wakefield agreed to in writing:
" All sources of funding must be disclosed, as an acknowledgment in the text."
Now hold up your copy of the paper and read the acknowledgment section--do you see the acknowledgment of receiving funding from the lawyers? Nope--well now you know who is telling the truth.

[WhiteandNerdy]

2 of 2--about ethics
In my first posting I suggested that one really should research how conflicts of interest are managed before posting on the subject.
You have not done so. And your strategy is to reference your own ignorance based arguments on ethics.
So this is really, really simple. If you honestly want to understand the issue go read the ethics. Then you will understand another reason why your side's arguments have been totally rejected by the rest of the world. Your champions are neither competent or ethical.

[WhiteandNerdy]

4 of 4 Wakefield
Just to complete the ethical circle, after the dateline program Wakefield continued his on-line marketing campaign. Wakefield wrote:

"Dr. Offit cited a large population study of autism and MMR from Denmark
in support of his claim to 'certainty that there is no link.' This study
was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard
scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration. Dr.
Offit, who is not an epidemiologist, was clearly at a loss to understand
the study's fatal flaws."

Here is a copy of the Cochrane report which Wakefield calls the gold standard:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/cochrane.pdf

You will notice that:
*Wakefield's claim about the Demark study is an out right fabrication and his attack on Offit is entirely untruthful
*Wakefield's studies are explicitly listed as such poor quality that they are not worth of even considering
*"No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn's disease was found."
*"Low risk of bias evidence did not support a causal association with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or autism." They are saying that high quality data doesn't support the idea that MMR causes autism.
And in May 2004 the Cochrane authors explained in writing to Wakefield how he was gross misrepresenting their review. Five years later and nothing has changed...­..
Ethics is no different from science: the folks that claim vaccines cause autism have nothing to offer but misinformation

[hanjo]

White and Nerdy,

You are just too transparent. But here is cause for celebration. Now Dr. Offit's wife, pediatrician, Dr. Bonnie Offit can legitimately (and not be breaking the law this time) have Merck's commerical she "acted" in whereby she promoted Gardasil for boys last summer! It disappeared from the air suddenly. Besides being illegal, keeping it on the air, may have given a perception that the Offits do this for merck FOR THE MONEY! (Thank goodness for Tivo).

[WhiteandNerdy]

Thank you hanjo,
Transparency is a good thing.
In this case it means providing a link to the paper Wakefield was commenting on.
This way people that are interested in the truth can read the paper and learn the facts.
It is a fact that Wakefield's statements were not true.
It is a fact that the proof of this was provided to you.
It is a fact that you ignored Wakefield's unethical and incompetent behavior.
It is a fact that you choose not to comment on any of the important issues raised.
It is a fact that instead you choose to post a completely instantiated personal attack on the spouse of one of the people under discussion.
Was it your intention to make a mockery of your side?
Do you have anything rational to contribute?

[Aslanone]

aslanone - continued
Offit's opposition to such studies is short-sighted and will eventually doom the benefits of
vaccines. Parents want healthy children, but this includes aboiding vaccine-caused disorders as
much as avoiding infectious disease. In our war against infection, society has a profound moral,
ethical, and scientific duty to take all necessary steps to prevent vaccine-caused collateral
damage. Ironically, Wakefield and those doctors and scientists curious and dedicated enough to
question vaccine safety leading to a safer schedule, in effect the Ralph Nader of the vaccine
movement, will eventually be recognizaed as saving the benefits of vaccines from the ruinous
policies of ignorance and censorship practiced by the Government.

[Aslanone]

aslanone - continued
Congress passed a Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines in 1986 that requires the Secretary of
HHS to reduce vaccine adverse events. This is an obvious requirement because parents naturally
insist on the safest possible vaccines as serious infectious diseases are reduced or eliminated.
Comparing the health of fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, in both prospective and
retrospective studies, is the obvious first step in carrying out this mandate. Dr. Tom Insel,
Chairman of the Interagency Autism Advisory Committee, collaborating with CDC, blocked
proposals in the annual strategic plan for autism research that would have begun to address this
question. [See
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/08/when-vaccine-development-is-family-business-thomas-ins
els-confli­cted-role-­on-vaccine­s-and-auti­sm.html;
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/safeminds-federal-members-of-advisory-committee-block-
vaccineaut­ism-resear­ch.html]. However, the National Vaccine Advosiroy Committee recognized
this crucial gap in our safety science and unanimously recommended such a program of study at
its June 3 meeting. [See recommendation 7:
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/NVACVaccineSafetyWGReport041409.pdf].

[Aslanone]

The Government's Policy of Deliberate Ignorance Threatens the Vaccine Program

Dr. Offit has conceded that no studies have ever been done comparing the health of vaccinated
and unvaccinated children. He and other vaccine "cheerleaders" thus can't possibly know
whether vaccines are "safe" with respect to chronic vaccine-caused disorders such as autism. The
Vaccine Court has b een quietly paying on vaccine-caused autism since 1991; all that remains is
the body count and working out the specific mechanisms and biomarkers that characterize the
injury. Rational parents are and will continue to revolt against the vaccine schedule and avoid
the risks of acute and chronic vaccine-caused disorders in their children, free-riding on the herd
immunity of more compliant and less curious parents.

[essfox]

my son has the measles
yes, he has been tested and has the MMR vaccine strain of the measles wreaking havoc in his intestines and a diagnosis of autism
thanks to the DAN! protocol of alternative treatments, which is shunned as quackery by mainstream medicine , he has gotten much better, while those same mainstream doctors have nothing medically to offer him, and don't even recognize the common-sense connection between the gut and brain
it all makes me sad, very sad
mmr does harm some children!

[PJCarroll]

Thank you, Mr. Moore, for this excellent and honest article! And thank you Kasemodel family for allowing Dateline to follow along during an incredibly stressful ordeal. Matt Lauer should hang his head in shame for manipulating the Dateline story to omit crucial facts - especially when we know he had those facts readily available.

"Nothing, of course, matters but the science. Unfortunately, when it is finally done, the truth it provides will arrive many years too late for millions of families. They erroneously placed their trust in our government's policies and the physicians and researchers that were supposed to "first do no harm."."

Well said!

[Dynamohum]

There are very good reasons why school children are REQUIRED to have vaccinations prior to school. It you choose not to vaccinate your child, then you should be prepared to move to a country that doesn't require them.....t­hink Third World.....­malaria, hiv, dengue,...­.etc......

If a person does not understand the importance of everyone being vaccinated for the GREATER good they don't belong in civilized society, they should move or be removed.

[JohnDanStone]

Dynamohum

By and large the deadly infectious diseases retreated not because of vaccination but because of improved living conditions: sanitation, nutrition, proper housing.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

This is not to say that vaccination has not contributed, but it is only a small part of the story. It is also rather irrelevant to the issue here - you are telling us that because vaccination is a good thing we should accept any old nonsense. We need to be able to discuss the safety of the products which are injected into our children without the customary bullying of which you have just provided a classic example.

John Stone, Contributing editor www.ageofautism.com

[jened]

I work in special educations. Is it for the GREATER GOOD that we have all these damaged children? REALLY? TONS of money is going into their therapy, education, living resources (when older) not to mention the heartbreak for the parents. YOU go to another country. Trust me, I think we'd be better off taking our chances with some of these "dreaded diseases"like chicken pox (we have decent sanitation, healthcare , nutrition here, I hope that would ensure most children would come through just fine). And do you really think hep b is necessary for a NEWBORN infant? Give me a break ; we are inundating and damaging little children and sadly they have no say in the matter.

[sciphy]

This article is dated. In response to these issues, every major academic institution/medical center in the US has now developed conflict of interest policies for their faculty. Curiously, there is no oversight of institutional conflict of interest. It has always been much easier to target individuals that it is to examine institutional practices. Since these conflict of interest policies have ramped up in the last five years, they have started to deter research in major academic centers. The net result has been the rise of for-profit research companies doing trials in private practice where significant dollars change hands and there is virtually no oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

[JTMOK]

How is this news dated? Dr. Offit was on NBC last weekend and was asked about his conflicts and failed to disclose his chair is funded by Merck and he has been (by his own testimony) a consultant for the company. If new rules apply here, why wasn't he more forthcoming?
How is full disclosure a bad thing for anyone? This is a scare tactic. Boiled down, you are saying honesty and transparency in science is a bad thing. Please break that down for me...

[nomoredeception]

Thank You Mr. Moore! There is a tremendous amount of misery in this country that has it's roots in the greed of others. We must be willing to face this squarely. First, tough, we need brave and honest people who are willing to reveal the truth. You are doing this, and we appreciate it.

[rmoffi]

Does it strike anyone as odd that only two people have taken the time and made the effort to disagree somewhat with Jim's excellent commentary of the myriad "conflicts of interest" that Dr. Offit has?

Perhaps Dr. Offit's career as main-stream media's "go to guy" as chief defender of vaccines in this country has finally ended....f­or the very same reasons that ended the inglorious career of Iraq's Baghdad Bob...who was last seen on Iraqi television sets "reporting" the Iraqi Revolutionary Army had achieved a glorious victory over American troops....­.while stunned Iraqi citizens were witnessing American tanks rolling unchallenged throughout their Baghdad neighborhoods.

I wonder what Baghdad Bob is doing these days?

[JohnDanStone]

rmoffi

Yes, and they will have to replace the doctrine of 10,000 vaccines. Goodness, they might have to start testing some of them...

John Stone, Contributing editor www.ageofautism.com

[CraigWilloughby]

John,
Remember, he revised his statement. It's now 100,000 vaccines.

[Dynamohum]

ALL VACCINES ARE TESTED....­.so why are you LYING?