or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines - Page 3

post #41 of 52
Another question similar to my other unanswered one: when did offit join the committee? When did rotashield get added? I know the answer, it's an easy enough fact check to do before you blindly repeat attacks you read somewhere.
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I haven't seen any evidence that he DID vote for that.
I also haven't seen any evidence he has an ongoing financial relationship with Merck. I don't think he is unbiased, I think he is decidedly biased in favor of vaccines, just not for the reasons people are saying.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/voting-himself-rich-cdc-vaccine-adviser-made-29-million-or-more-after-using-role-to-create-market.html

 

"Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield .... Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials."

 

It seems very odd that ACIP voted to give the rotavirus category  "Routine Vaccination" status BEFORE the very first rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, was even approved by the FDA.

 

post #43 of 52
That information is not accurate. Rotashield was voted onto the schedule months before offit was appointed to the council.

"RotaShield® vaccine was the first vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis approved for use in the United States in August 1998. For more information about rotavirus, see Question & Answers about Rotavirus."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-historical.htm

Offit joined the council after it was approved, in October.
post #44 of 52

Here's another commentary on Offit from AoA:

 

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/dr-paul-offit-fox-in-a-henhouse-the-acip-years-1998-2003.html

 

"A particularly troubling aspect of the deliberations on the 'RotaShield' vaccine is the sequence of events. The ACIP Committee voted to recommend universal vaccinations of infants before the FDA licensure of the vaccine. Officials of the CDC acknowledged that they knew of no other instance where this has happened."

 

I have not been able to find an explanation of why they went out of order in this instance.

 

Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP's rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program. Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP's rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use.

 

 

Offit is quoted as stating that he had no conflicts, but that he was abstaining to avoid creating the perception of a conflict.

 

I like J.B. Handley's comment on this:
Approve it [RotaTeq]? "Yes." Approve it [RotaTeq]? "Hell yes!" Approve it [RotaTeq]? "Absolutely." It's [RotaTeq's] hurting a bunch of kids, we need to pull it! "Umm….I have a conflict, gotta go."

post #45 of 52
What were the specifics of the votes you are referring to?

It's no secret that age of autism can't stand Paul offit. But they're facts are wrong, here. Maybe try a less biased source.
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

"A particularly troubling aspect of the deliberations on the 'RotaShield' vaccine is the sequence of events. The ACIP Committee voted to recommend universal vaccinations of infants before the FDA licensure of the vaccine.

This is also not really true. Rotashield was recommended for licensure in 1997. Acipdidnt recommend routine usage until 1998.
post #47 of 52
Ok, tracked down details of those votes for you,taxi, you're welcome. Looks like the relevant action by acip would be 1. Recommending rotashield for vaccines for children, seems like that is probably procedural once it's on the vaccine schedule, but I'm not sure about that. 2. Recommended that it was ok to vaccinate infants who had diarrhea at the time of immunization with rotashield 3. Votes to include premature infants in the schedule, with several caveats about age and health. 4. Vote to rescind rotashield recommendation.

I fail to see how offit benefited from voting yes to any of those, except the last, which you have already corrected your stance and acknowledged he recused himself from.
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

He no longer gets royalties from rotateq. You're right, I guess where he invests his money is his business.

Yes, he does. Through Wistar.

 

He invented Rotateq. As policy, Wistar allocates 15% of profits above a certain amount that they deem an "inventor's share" or the "inventors fund."  It's there on their website. Go look.

 

As I said in previous posts, his Rotateq profits come from different means, thats no one's business. He needn't share it.

 

Additionally, the "timing argument" between when he joined the panel and when it was approved is weak at best. The man is friends with the majority of those on the panel. Friends vote for friends. To believe the world doesn't work that way is to not be in touch with reality.

post #49 of 52
Sorry, but no, he doesn't. His financial interest was sold by wistar and chop several years ago. Wistar doesn't currently receive any revenue from rota to set aside. He and the other three inventors split the "inventors share" at the time of the sale, to the tune of around six million dollars each.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Sorry, but no, he doesn't. His financial interest was sold by wistar and chop several years ago. Wistar doesn't currently receive any revenue from rota to set aside. He and the other three inventors split the "inventors share" at the time of the sale, to the tune of around six million dollars each.

The man still profits from it, and yes, through a form of funneling. Period. It's not illegal; it's just none of your business. Simply because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't happening. It is. I don't care that it is happening. Why do you care so much to attempt to prove it's not? The man was a co-inventor on something some people find very important. He made it, he makes money from it. So?

 

Does society know about your financial cornerstones? Are your private investments out for all the world to see? Of course not. Thus the word private. If there was a conflict of interest, he isn't going to broadcast it. He is affectionately referred to, among his own circle of comrades, as Paul Proffit. 

 

Here's a fair statement. You believe what you believe, and I'll know what I know, which are facts. No, not ones you can scour the internet for or constantly demand "links" to. Ones that are only known to those who work within the same sector and some who only work in/around CHOP. Arguing this back and forth "no he doesn't" "yes he does" when we draw from vastly different wells of knowledge and sources is pointless. 

post #51 of 52
It is not accurate to say he receives royalties through either chop or wistar. Both of these groups sold their royalty interest, to I believe royal pharma and Paul's capital respectively, so they receive no money to funnel to him. He has stated this directly.

If there is some other arrangement where he is an investor in Paul's capital or something you're right, I wouldn't know. Frankly, I don't see any possible way you would, either, even if you do hang out at chop, but I can't speak to that.
post #52 of 52

This is the "Researching the Vaccine Decision" forum where the discussion should be about specific topics to help parents make an informed decision about vaccinating and vaccines. When discussions veer off into debating individual profiting, conflicts of interest, and reputation I think it is no longer serving the purpose of the forum. Let's please keep posts about the topic and not about individuals.

 

Rrrrrachel, I edited one of your posts down to less than 100 words to comply with our copyright guidelines. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Interesting read on aluminum in vaccines