Changes

: It is all true. What part do you doubt? The CDC regularly publishes the vaccine recommendations, and you can see much of this for yourself in those published reports. They have to grant waivers to the panel members to bypass govt conflict-of-interest laws. I agree that citations are needed, but please don't remove it unless you find some evidence that it is false. If it were false, it should be obvious from those CDC reports. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

: It is all true. What part do you doubt? The CDC regularly publishes the vaccine recommendations, and you can see much of this for yourself in those published reports. They have to grant waivers to the panel members to bypass govt conflict-of-interest laws. I agree that citations are needed, but please don't remove it unless you find some evidence that it is false. If it were false, it should be obvious from those CDC reports. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well I doubt most of it actually.  I suppose I need to take a small step back and admit that all my experience dealing with Pharmaceuticals and vaccines comes from dealing (in a legal advisory capacity) with Pharmac which is the NZ regulatory and funding board for all medicines and treatments, I'm not familiar with the US experience.  Having said that, I know that the amount of scrutiny and participation by the public is very extensive.  In fact I have often heard people who work at Pharmac say that there is far too much consultation and attention paid to consumer groups and other groups who come from a strictly less than medical cost/benefit analysis.  I won't remove it because I accpet that you might have some expertise in this area, but I do suggest we tighten up the wording a little.  At the moment the paragraph makes us appear angry and slightly conspiratorial, not learned critics of a flawed system.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:00, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well I doubt most of it actually.  I suppose I need to take a small step back and admit that all my experience dealing with Pharmaceuticals and vaccines comes from dealing (in a legal advisory capacity) with Pharmac which is the NZ regulatory and funding board for all medicines and treatments, I'm not familiar with the US experience.  Having said that, I know that the amount of scrutiny and participation by the public is very extensive.  In fact I have often heard people who work at Pharmac say that there is far too much consultation and attention paid to consumer groups and other groups who come from a strictly less than medical cost/benefit analysis.  I won't remove it because I accept that you might have some expertise in this area, but I do suggest we tighten up the wording a little.  At the moment the paragraph makes us appear angry and slightly conspiratorial, not learned critics of a flawed system.  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:00, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 

::: I followed this more about 10 years ago. I tried to get minutes of the meetings. I got some partial ones, but they were not posted in the internet, and they said that some could not be released because trade secret drug industry info was discussed. From what I got, there was no serious analysis. In one case, panel members said that they were requiring a vaccine because that allowed poor people to get it free. The whole thing seemed as if it were just serving the interests of the drug companies. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:42, 8 October 2011 (EDT)