Tarryall.net
. . . a Guide for Living Energetically
. . . a Guide for Living Energetically
Why Do People Get Flu Shots?
by Wilton D. Alston, October 6, 2007
www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston33.html
A Canadian comedy troop did a very funny bit on flu shots
a while ago. They listed the ingredients in the typical flu
shot, as they put them in a blender. During the bit they
also polled people "on the street" and asked them some
pretty basic questions about flu shots. Most people couldn’
t list the ingredients. The level of ignorance displayed
made for great comedy. Funny stuff!
Which brings me to the question posed by this essay –
why do people get those shots?
The Upside of Vaccinations – Dubious?
A good bit of freely-available information paints a rather
cautionary and contrary-to-mainstream-orthodoxy picture
of vaccinations. According to Vaccination Debate, a
private website based in Australia, there is little, if any
data-based support for the belief that vaccination is as
important as it is often portrayed to be. This is evident
when one examines the timing between the introduction
of most vaccines and the decrease in death rates for the
diseases they supposedly fight. While there are several
examples of this phenomenon, I’ll only include a couple
below; note that year is plotted on the X-axis.
I’m neither an epidemiologist nor an immunologist, but
this data – even though taken from Australia – seems
instructive on a number of levels. Notice when the vaccine
was deployed. Contrast that with the slope of the curve.
It seems pretty obvious that vaccination had little, if any,
effect on death rate. Then again, that’s exactly what Dr.
Weil says in the quote that heads this essay above. He’s
far from alone; but wait, there’s more.
Andrew Saul, over at DoctorYourself.com stated in a
recent newsletter:
"There is plentiful evidence that vaccinations are less
than beneficial. The venerable British Anti-Vaccination
League (and, incidentally, George Bernard Shaw) was
vociferously against them. Homeopathic medical writers
frequently include passages in their texts on how to treat
vaccinosis, or the side-effects of vaccinations (Clarke,
1972). Certainly the U.S. Government cannot say without
qualification that shots are either safe or essential. After
all, this is what was said about the infamous Swine Flu
vaccine in a 1976 FDA Consumer Memo in my possession:
‘Some minor side effects – tenderness in the arm, low
fever, tiredness – will occur in less than 4% of
(vaccinated) adults. Serious reactions from flu vaccines
are very rare.’ So much for blanket claims of safety. Many
persons well remember the very numerous and very
serious side effects of Swine Flu vaccine that forced the
federal immunization program to a halt." [Boldface added.]
Dr. Joseph Mercola, over at Mercola.com asks in a not-so-
recent piece:
Do you want any of the following vaccine constituents in
YOUR bloodstream?
Vaccines are also grown and strained through animal or
human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo,
embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, and human diploid
cells (the dissected organs of aborted human fetuses as
in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox
vaccines).
That thimerosal has been banned in several countries
while continuing to be used, and in fact, promoted by
some doctors’ groups in the U.S. is also rather interesting.
From NewsTarget, we have a piece that speaks to the
"modest benefit" one can expect from getting a flu shot:
"In their review of 71 studies, Dr. Daniela Rivetti of the
public health department of Asti, Italy, and colleagues
found that flu shots prevented 45 percent of flu-like
illnesses, hospital admissions and flu-related deaths
among nursing home and long-term care patients. Flu
vaccinations prevented only 25 percent of these outcomes
in older adults still living in the community."
NewsTarget also recently reported on the results of a new
British Medical Journal analysis, which showed why, "Flu
Shots are Virtually Worthless." That article states:
"Dr. Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the Cochrane Vaccines
Field in Rome, Italy, conducted an extensive review of
previous studies on the effectiveness of inactivated [dead
virus] flu vaccines on hospital admissions, death rates
and time off work."
Dr. Jefferson reports that while vaccine recommendations
have actually increased in recent years, the data shows
that they are largely ineffective in the populations for
which they are most highly recommended. Not
surprisingly, others have written about this report, as well.
Even the more mainstream media reported that flu shots
were "much ado about nothing." Interestingly, the same
Dr. Jefferson as quoted by NewsTarget was quoted in an
article originally linked (but not freely-available) by
Medline. I found the article on HealthCentral.com,
entitled "Study Questions Value of Flu Shots" via another
source. That article states:
"We've got an exaggerated expectation of what vaccines
can actually do," said study author Dr. Tom Jefferson. ...
"I'm hoping American and European taxpayers will be
alerted and will start asking questions."
The article goes on to say:
"Overall, Jefferson concluded, influenza vaccines have
little or no effect on many influenza campaign objectives,
such as hospital stay, time off work, or death from
influenza and its complications." [Emphasis added.]
After all this information, there can be little doubt that
the usefulness of flu shots is, at very least, questionable.
That is the objective data about the shot itself. Yet the
establishment continues to push them. Since I do not
readily subscribe to the paradigm of random evil in
people, there must be some reason, other than ignorance,
that drives those with power and influence to support
widespread flu shots for the US population.
The Downside of Vaccinations – Obvious?
The FDA recommends vaccinations. Given my impression
of that organization, their recommendation alone is
almost tantamount to a suggestion to the contrary. The
socialist paradigm by which the FDA operates virtually
guarantees that its decisions won’t be in the best interest
of "the customer." As Manuel Lora and I said in that
previous column:
"The difference, however, between the market and the
state is that the latter lacks a negative feedback
mechanism. In the market, if a company makes a
mistake, it can be severely punished by the customers.
With the government, no such thing happens. When the
FDA makes a mistake, it doesn't go away or downsize; it
cannot be boycotted or legally bypassed; one cannot seek
alternate quality control and certification systems. In
fact, we are perpetually tied to the FDA and any state
agency through taxation. The state has no incentive to be
more effective by controlling cost or increasing quality
because it can always rely on a constant influx of funds."
We are virtually assured that even demonstrably bad
decisions will not be punished, because externalization of
risk is one inevitable outcome of a coercive state.
The CDC advises everyone to get a shot, including both
the young and the old. Yet I cannot find much information
that backs this need up with data. Medline showed some
positive data about flu shots and their effectiveness. An
article entitled, "Studies Support Flu Vaccine’s
Effectiveness" states:
"Using surveillance data, the researchers predicted what
the peak week of influenza season would be. They also
had parents answer questionnaires about what
symptoms, if any, they and their children were
experiencing, what medications they had purchased, and
any doctor visits, missed school or work days they had
logged."
The article goes on to say:
"The team found a significant reduction in influenza-like
illnesses in both adults and children from households with
a vaccinated child compared to the non-vaccinated
households. The researchers also saw significantly fewer
numbers of medical office visits, lowered use of
prescription and over-the-counter medications and a
reduction in missed school days by elementary and high-
school children in the vaccinated households."
Certainly this is a positive recommendation, but a
lukewarm one at best, given the contrary data presented
by The Lancet, et al. Not even all mainstream news
sources paint a rosy picture, as evidenced by "Universal
Flu Shots Urged" published on-line a few years back in by
the National Women’s Health Resource Center. That
article states:
"The rationale for universal vaccination comes from the
concept of ‘herd immunity,’ which posits that with more
people vaccinated, less overall virus circulates and
people, especially frail people, have less chance of
contracting the illness."
The article goes on to say:
"But this argument comes on the heels of a study in The
Lancet that showed that even with people for whom the
vaccine is most recommended (the elderly), protection
can be as low as 30 percent." [Boldface added.]
So while one can find some positive data from some of
the mainstream, there exists a not insignificant amount
of data from both the mainstream (e.g., The Lancet) and
the not-so-mainstream (e.g., Dr. Mercola) that question
the usefulness and efficacy of flu shots. At best it
appears that one is opting to inject a foreign substance
with likely only 25–45% effectiveness while hoping that
no side-effects occur. (Anyone care to pay for the chance
to play Russian roulette?)
Another researcher in the article linked from HealthCentral.
com says, "My message is definitely go out there and get
the flu vaccine if you're an older individual."
But the CDC also reports that only 36,000 people die from
the infection each year. Contrast that number with this
little tidbit, found at Medical News Today:
"An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to
potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each
of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new
study of 37 million patient records that was released
today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company."
It appears pretty clear that anything one can do to stay
out of the hospital is a good first step. I still can’t find
any reason to think vaccinations are a critical component
of a healthy lifestyle, unless we conclude that something
is better than nothing. That doesn’t sound like an
effective immunization strategy.
Using the numbers above we see that over five times as
many people will die because they happen to be in the
hospital and are unlucky enough to experience a
preventable error than will die from getting the flu, if the
vaccine itself doesn’t put them in the hospital. Seems to
me your chances are better on your own anyway,
particularly given the performance data.
According to Mercola the myths about vaccination have
more efficacy than the vaccines themselves. For example:
Myth: Vaccines are safe.
Truth: "Vaccination causes significant death and
disability at an astounding personal and financial cost to
uninformed families."
Myth: Vaccines are effective.
Truth: "Evidence suggests that vaccination is an
unreliable means of preventing disease."
Myth: Vaccines are responsible for the low incidence of
disease in the US.
Truth: "It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines
had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease
declines." (The graphs above reflect this truth.)
Until these types of myths are exposed for what they are
– over-statements at best, lies at worst – people will, I
suspect, continue to line up for flu shots and other
vaccinations. Worse yet, many will opt for voluntary
vaccinations such as HPV, which is also unwise in my
view. The bulk of this behavior is due to heavy
propagandization from agents of the State. (Even as
reports of deaths from vaccine side-effects start to roll in,
Merck continues to lobby.) Why does this occur? It occurs
for the same old reasons. People continue to use the
power of the State to enrich themselves.
The Promotion of Vaccinations – Profitable?
According to Barbara Fisher, who served for ten years on
the US National Vaccine Advisory Committee:
"We have bad science and bad medicine translated into
law to ensure that vaccine manufacturers make big
profits, that career bureaucrats at the Public Health
Service meet the mass vaccination goals promised to
politicians funding their budgets, and pediatricians have a
steady flow of patients…As the drug companies have
often stated in meetings I have attended, if a vaccine
they produce is not mandated to be used on a mass
basis, they do not recoup their R&D costs and do not
make the profit they want. In the medical literature
official studies of vaccine risk are published purportedly
proving there is no cause and effect. What the reader
does not know is that often the studies have been
designed and conducted by physicians who sit on vaccine
policy-making committees at the Centers for Disease
Control…some of whom receive money from vaccine
manufacturers for their universities and for testifying as
expert witnesses in vaccine-injury cases. And others are
federal employees with an eye on career advancement
within HHS and a future job with a vaccine manufacturer
after retirement from public service. Many of these same
physicians sit on the peer review boards of the major
medical journals such as Pediatrics and JAMA, where they
refuse space for studies or letters from the few brave
physicians who dare to challenge their assertions that
there is no cause and effect."
From my own experience in regulated medical device
research and development, I know that it is not
uncommon for a manufacturer of diagnostic tests to
decide which tests to develop with an understanding (or
in fact, an expectation) that the State will mandate the
use of the new tests, and thereby furnish the
manufacturer with a steady stream of income. And let us
be clear, this behavior is not unethical, it is good
business planning! (Now if one lobbies on one end while
developing items to sell as a result of that lobbying on
the other, well…) Still, this behavior is the inevitable
result of statist policies – regulation, mandates, etc. –
distorting the market.
For another – if unrelated to vaccinations – example of
the interplay that exists between state control and
misplaced incentives, one need only gaze upon this
tidbit: the AMA is raking in about $70 million per year on
licensing CPT codes. CPT codes – current procedural
terminology – are explained in a Wiki entry which states:
"The CPT code set accurately describes medical, surgical,
and diagnostic services and is designed to communicate
uniform information about medical services and
procedures between physicians, coders, patients,
accreditation organizations, and payers for administrative,
financial, and analytical purposes."
The AMA holds a copyright on the codes and licenses their
use.
Basically, the scam works like this. The CPT system is
mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) and HIPAA, and the data for it appears in
the Federal Register. In order to associate the Relative
Value Unit (RVU) – the common scale by which practically
all physician services are measured – with CPT codes, a
fee must be paid to the AMA. In other words, the State
requires that the CPT system be used, and the AMA
scoops up the profits as a direct result. (Nice work if you
can get it.)
By controlling access to the market, agents of the State
simultaneously drive the available offerings down and
profits – for a select few – up. Now certainly this all has
little to do with flu shots specifically, but misplaced
statist incentives always lead to these types of
outcomes. This is but one example.
Further down the text found at the CPT code citation
above, under the heading, "CDC Refuses to Deny Conflict
of Interest on Vaccine Policy Committee," we find that a
doctor was giving "pro-vaccination" lectures in exchange
for money, money supplied by Merck, a vaccine vendor.
(What a surprise.) If Merck and the CDC can be asked
directly if such an arrangement is a conflict of interest,
which they were, and they refuse to answer that
question, which they did, I suspect we have all the
answer we need.
Conclusion
We’ve uncovered yet another place where data, logic, and
common sense go directly against the information spit
out by the agents of the State. (Really, it wasn’t that
hard.) Of course this discovery is not surprising, since
basic logic virtually guarantees that the coercive powers
of the State will always be used to enrich some at the
expense of others. History is an unerring teacher in this
regard. As Bastiat so aptly put it, "The State is that great
fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the
expense of everyone else." Indeed.
I’m not qualified to advise anyone about their health
choices. The reader is invited to decide for himself. It just
strikes me as a little strange and a little hazardous for
anyone to place too many of these decisions in the hands
of the State or more accurately, its agents, particularly for
so little obvious benefit.
This is particularly true when it appears that very little
about your or my health and wellness drives many, if not
most, of their actions.
by Wilton D. Alston, October 6, 2007
www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston33.html
A Canadian comedy troop did a very funny bit on flu shots
a while ago. They listed the ingredients in the typical flu
shot, as they put them in a blender. During the bit they
also polled people "on the street" and asked them some
pretty basic questions about flu shots. Most people couldn’
t list the ingredients. The level of ignorance displayed
made for great comedy. Funny stuff!
Which brings me to the question posed by this essay –
why do people get those shots?
The Upside of Vaccinations – Dubious?
A good bit of freely-available information paints a rather
cautionary and contrary-to-mainstream-orthodoxy picture
of vaccinations. According to Vaccination Debate, a
private website based in Australia, there is little, if any
data-based support for the belief that vaccination is as
important as it is often portrayed to be. This is evident
when one examines the timing between the introduction
of most vaccines and the decrease in death rates for the
diseases they supposedly fight. While there are several
examples of this phenomenon, I’ll only include a couple
below; note that year is plotted on the X-axis.
I’m neither an epidemiologist nor an immunologist, but
this data – even though taken from Australia – seems
instructive on a number of levels. Notice when the vaccine
was deployed. Contrast that with the slope of the curve.
It seems pretty obvious that vaccination had little, if any,
effect on death rate. Then again, that’s exactly what Dr.
Weil says in the quote that heads this essay above. He’s
far from alone; but wait, there’s more.
Andrew Saul, over at DoctorYourself.com stated in a
recent newsletter:
"There is plentiful evidence that vaccinations are less
than beneficial. The venerable British Anti-Vaccination
League (and, incidentally, George Bernard Shaw) was
vociferously against them. Homeopathic medical writers
frequently include passages in their texts on how to treat
vaccinosis, or the side-effects of vaccinations (Clarke,
1972). Certainly the U.S. Government cannot say without
qualification that shots are either safe or essential. After
all, this is what was said about the infamous Swine Flu
vaccine in a 1976 FDA Consumer Memo in my possession:
‘Some minor side effects – tenderness in the arm, low
fever, tiredness – will occur in less than 4% of
(vaccinated) adults. Serious reactions from flu vaccines
are very rare.’ So much for blanket claims of safety. Many
persons well remember the very numerous and very
serious side effects of Swine Flu vaccine that forced the
federal immunization program to a halt." [Boldface added.]
Dr. Joseph Mercola, over at Mercola.com asks in a not-so-
recent piece:
Do you want any of the following vaccine constituents in
YOUR bloodstream?
- Ethylene glycol (antifreeze)
- Phenol, also known as carbolic acid (this is used as a
disinfectant, dye) - Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent
- Aluminum, which is associated with Alzheimer's
disease and seizures and also cancer producing in
laboratory mice (it is used as an additive to promote
antibody response) - Thimerosal (a mercury disinfectant/preservative) can
result in brain injury and autoimmune disease - Neomycin and Streptomycin (used as antibiotics)
have caused allergic reaction in some people.
Vaccines are also grown and strained through animal or
human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo,
embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, and human diploid
cells (the dissected organs of aborted human fetuses as
in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox
vaccines).
That thimerosal has been banned in several countries
while continuing to be used, and in fact, promoted by
some doctors’ groups in the U.S. is also rather interesting.
From NewsTarget, we have a piece that speaks to the
"modest benefit" one can expect from getting a flu shot:
"In their review of 71 studies, Dr. Daniela Rivetti of the
public health department of Asti, Italy, and colleagues
found that flu shots prevented 45 percent of flu-like
illnesses, hospital admissions and flu-related deaths
among nursing home and long-term care patients. Flu
vaccinations prevented only 25 percent of these outcomes
in older adults still living in the community."
NewsTarget also recently reported on the results of a new
British Medical Journal analysis, which showed why, "Flu
Shots are Virtually Worthless." That article states:
"Dr. Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the Cochrane Vaccines
Field in Rome, Italy, conducted an extensive review of
previous studies on the effectiveness of inactivated [dead
virus] flu vaccines on hospital admissions, death rates
and time off work."
Dr. Jefferson reports that while vaccine recommendations
have actually increased in recent years, the data shows
that they are largely ineffective in the populations for
which they are most highly recommended. Not
surprisingly, others have written about this report, as well.
Even the more mainstream media reported that flu shots
were "much ado about nothing." Interestingly, the same
Dr. Jefferson as quoted by NewsTarget was quoted in an
article originally linked (but not freely-available) by
Medline. I found the article on HealthCentral.com,
entitled "Study Questions Value of Flu Shots" via another
source. That article states:
"We've got an exaggerated expectation of what vaccines
can actually do," said study author Dr. Tom Jefferson. ...
"I'm hoping American and European taxpayers will be
alerted and will start asking questions."
The article goes on to say:
"Overall, Jefferson concluded, influenza vaccines have
little or no effect on many influenza campaign objectives,
such as hospital stay, time off work, or death from
influenza and its complications." [Emphasis added.]
After all this information, there can be little doubt that
the usefulness of flu shots is, at very least, questionable.
That is the objective data about the shot itself. Yet the
establishment continues to push them. Since I do not
readily subscribe to the paradigm of random evil in
people, there must be some reason, other than ignorance,
that drives those with power and influence to support
widespread flu shots for the US population.
The Downside of Vaccinations – Obvious?
The FDA recommends vaccinations. Given my impression
of that organization, their recommendation alone is
almost tantamount to a suggestion to the contrary. The
socialist paradigm by which the FDA operates virtually
guarantees that its decisions won’t be in the best interest
of "the customer." As Manuel Lora and I said in that
previous column:
"The difference, however, between the market and the
state is that the latter lacks a negative feedback
mechanism. In the market, if a company makes a
mistake, it can be severely punished by the customers.
With the government, no such thing happens. When the
FDA makes a mistake, it doesn't go away or downsize; it
cannot be boycotted or legally bypassed; one cannot seek
alternate quality control and certification systems. In
fact, we are perpetually tied to the FDA and any state
agency through taxation. The state has no incentive to be
more effective by controlling cost or increasing quality
because it can always rely on a constant influx of funds."
We are virtually assured that even demonstrably bad
decisions will not be punished, because externalization of
risk is one inevitable outcome of a coercive state.
The CDC advises everyone to get a shot, including both
the young and the old. Yet I cannot find much information
that backs this need up with data. Medline showed some
positive data about flu shots and their effectiveness. An
article entitled, "Studies Support Flu Vaccine’s
Effectiveness" states:
"Using surveillance data, the researchers predicted what
the peak week of influenza season would be. They also
had parents answer questionnaires about what
symptoms, if any, they and their children were
experiencing, what medications they had purchased, and
any doctor visits, missed school or work days they had
logged."
The article goes on to say:
"The team found a significant reduction in influenza-like
illnesses in both adults and children from households with
a vaccinated child compared to the non-vaccinated
households. The researchers also saw significantly fewer
numbers of medical office visits, lowered use of
prescription and over-the-counter medications and a
reduction in missed school days by elementary and high-
school children in the vaccinated households."
Certainly this is a positive recommendation, but a
lukewarm one at best, given the contrary data presented
by The Lancet, et al. Not even all mainstream news
sources paint a rosy picture, as evidenced by "Universal
Flu Shots Urged" published on-line a few years back in by
the National Women’s Health Resource Center. That
article states:
"The rationale for universal vaccination comes from the
concept of ‘herd immunity,’ which posits that with more
people vaccinated, less overall virus circulates and
people, especially frail people, have less chance of
contracting the illness."
The article goes on to say:
"But this argument comes on the heels of a study in The
Lancet that showed that even with people for whom the
vaccine is most recommended (the elderly), protection
can be as low as 30 percent." [Boldface added.]
So while one can find some positive data from some of
the mainstream, there exists a not insignificant amount
of data from both the mainstream (e.g., The Lancet) and
the not-so-mainstream (e.g., Dr. Mercola) that question
the usefulness and efficacy of flu shots. At best it
appears that one is opting to inject a foreign substance
with likely only 25–45% effectiveness while hoping that
no side-effects occur. (Anyone care to pay for the chance
to play Russian roulette?)
Another researcher in the article linked from HealthCentral.
com says, "My message is definitely go out there and get
the flu vaccine if you're an older individual."
But the CDC also reports that only 36,000 people die from
the infection each year. Contrast that number with this
little tidbit, found at Medical News Today:
"An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to
potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each
of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new
study of 37 million patient records that was released
today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company."
It appears pretty clear that anything one can do to stay
out of the hospital is a good first step. I still can’t find
any reason to think vaccinations are a critical component
of a healthy lifestyle, unless we conclude that something
is better than nothing. That doesn’t sound like an
effective immunization strategy.
Using the numbers above we see that over five times as
many people will die because they happen to be in the
hospital and are unlucky enough to experience a
preventable error than will die from getting the flu, if the
vaccine itself doesn’t put them in the hospital. Seems to
me your chances are better on your own anyway,
particularly given the performance data.
According to Mercola the myths about vaccination have
more efficacy than the vaccines themselves. For example:
Myth: Vaccines are safe.
Truth: "Vaccination causes significant death and
disability at an astounding personal and financial cost to
uninformed families."
Myth: Vaccines are effective.
Truth: "Evidence suggests that vaccination is an
unreliable means of preventing disease."
Myth: Vaccines are responsible for the low incidence of
disease in the US.
Truth: "It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines
had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease
declines." (The graphs above reflect this truth.)
Until these types of myths are exposed for what they are
– over-statements at best, lies at worst – people will, I
suspect, continue to line up for flu shots and other
vaccinations. Worse yet, many will opt for voluntary
vaccinations such as HPV, which is also unwise in my
view. The bulk of this behavior is due to heavy
propagandization from agents of the State. (Even as
reports of deaths from vaccine side-effects start to roll in,
Merck continues to lobby.) Why does this occur? It occurs
for the same old reasons. People continue to use the
power of the State to enrich themselves.
The Promotion of Vaccinations – Profitable?
According to Barbara Fisher, who served for ten years on
the US National Vaccine Advisory Committee:
"We have bad science and bad medicine translated into
law to ensure that vaccine manufacturers make big
profits, that career bureaucrats at the Public Health
Service meet the mass vaccination goals promised to
politicians funding their budgets, and pediatricians have a
steady flow of patients…As the drug companies have
often stated in meetings I have attended, if a vaccine
they produce is not mandated to be used on a mass
basis, they do not recoup their R&D costs and do not
make the profit they want. In the medical literature
official studies of vaccine risk are published purportedly
proving there is no cause and effect. What the reader
does not know is that often the studies have been
designed and conducted by physicians who sit on vaccine
policy-making committees at the Centers for Disease
Control…some of whom receive money from vaccine
manufacturers for their universities and for testifying as
expert witnesses in vaccine-injury cases. And others are
federal employees with an eye on career advancement
within HHS and a future job with a vaccine manufacturer
after retirement from public service. Many of these same
physicians sit on the peer review boards of the major
medical journals such as Pediatrics and JAMA, where they
refuse space for studies or letters from the few brave
physicians who dare to challenge their assertions that
there is no cause and effect."
From my own experience in regulated medical device
research and development, I know that it is not
uncommon for a manufacturer of diagnostic tests to
decide which tests to develop with an understanding (or
in fact, an expectation) that the State will mandate the
use of the new tests, and thereby furnish the
manufacturer with a steady stream of income. And let us
be clear, this behavior is not unethical, it is good
business planning! (Now if one lobbies on one end while
developing items to sell as a result of that lobbying on
the other, well…) Still, this behavior is the inevitable
result of statist policies – regulation, mandates, etc. –
distorting the market.
For another – if unrelated to vaccinations – example of
the interplay that exists between state control and
misplaced incentives, one need only gaze upon this
tidbit: the AMA is raking in about $70 million per year on
licensing CPT codes. CPT codes – current procedural
terminology – are explained in a Wiki entry which states:
"The CPT code set accurately describes medical, surgical,
and diagnostic services and is designed to communicate
uniform information about medical services and
procedures between physicians, coders, patients,
accreditation organizations, and payers for administrative,
financial, and analytical purposes."
The AMA holds a copyright on the codes and licenses their
use.
Basically, the scam works like this. The CPT system is
mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) and HIPAA, and the data for it appears in
the Federal Register. In order to associate the Relative
Value Unit (RVU) – the common scale by which practically
all physician services are measured – with CPT codes, a
fee must be paid to the AMA. In other words, the State
requires that the CPT system be used, and the AMA
scoops up the profits as a direct result. (Nice work if you
can get it.)
By controlling access to the market, agents of the State
simultaneously drive the available offerings down and
profits – for a select few – up. Now certainly this all has
little to do with flu shots specifically, but misplaced
statist incentives always lead to these types of
outcomes. This is but one example.
Further down the text found at the CPT code citation
above, under the heading, "CDC Refuses to Deny Conflict
of Interest on Vaccine Policy Committee," we find that a
doctor was giving "pro-vaccination" lectures in exchange
for money, money supplied by Merck, a vaccine vendor.
(What a surprise.) If Merck and the CDC can be asked
directly if such an arrangement is a conflict of interest,
which they were, and they refuse to answer that
question, which they did, I suspect we have all the
answer we need.
Conclusion
We’ve uncovered yet another place where data, logic, and
common sense go directly against the information spit
out by the agents of the State. (Really, it wasn’t that
hard.) Of course this discovery is not surprising, since
basic logic virtually guarantees that the coercive powers
of the State will always be used to enrich some at the
expense of others. History is an unerring teacher in this
regard. As Bastiat so aptly put it, "The State is that great
fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the
expense of everyone else." Indeed.
I’m not qualified to advise anyone about their health
choices. The reader is invited to decide for himself. It just
strikes me as a little strange and a little hazardous for
anyone to place too many of these decisions in the hands
of the State or more accurately, its agents, particularly for
so little obvious benefit.
This is particularly true when it appears that very little
about your or my health and wellness drives many, if not
most, of their actions.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| The information contained in the above articles has not been evaluated by the FDA. This information in not intended to treat, diagnose, cure or prevent any disease. All material provided is for educational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you have regarding a medical condition, and before undertaking any diet, exercise or other health program. |
| "Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunizations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water." Dr. Andrew Weil, Health and Healing |