Posted on 06/21/2002 7:09:28 PM PDT by WakeUpChristian
Broader flu shots for kids ordered
By M.A.J. McKenna / Cox News Service
06-21-02
ATLANTA -- Federal health authorities moved one step closer Thursday to requiring flu shots for all children older than 6 months, to protect them and the adults who live with them.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which sets vaccination policy for the government, voted to include young children's flu shots in the public programs that provide vaccinations for low-income and underinsured children.
The decision is not binding on private doctors or health care plans, but it is meant to serve as strong encouragement.
"It is a significant step, but not the final step," said Dr. Keiji Fukuda, a senior flu scientist at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The vote Thursday during the immunization committee's quarterly meeting in Atlanta commits three public programs -- the federal Vaccines for Children and "317" programs and the health programs of all the states -- to providing flu shots for three groups of children.
They are all children 6 to 23 months old; those between 6 months and 18 years old who have medical conditions that put them at high risk of flu complications, such as asthma and immune-system problems; and those between 6 months and 18 years old who live with an adult who has a high-risk condition such as AIDS or an organ transplant.
Vaccines for Children funds shots for children whose families receive Medicaid, have no insurance, are American Indians or Alaskan Natives or use certain federally designated health centers. The parallel 317 program covers underinsured children. Together with state programs, the programs provide vaccinations for about 52 percent of U.S. children.
The change made Thursday will require the federal government to provide about 12.8 million additional doses of flu vaccine per year, at a cost of $54.2 million, according to a CDC estimate. States will be responsible for providing an additional 1.2 million flu shots, costing $5.4 million. The CDC forecasts that it will take two years before the program reaches full implementation.
Earlier this year, the committee began encouraging flu shots for toddlers and for adults who take care of them. It held back from making a formal recomendation for fear of overstressing supplies of vaccine, which have been short and late in the past several years. The group's recommendations are published by the CDC and routinely adopted by doctors.
The group decided to recommend the additional shots for public programs after a CDC announcement Thursday that no flu vacine shortfalls are expected in the coming season.
"Manufacturers are projecting 92 million to 97 million doses will be delivered this fall, which is more than we have ever had," said the CDC's Caroline Bridges. "As of today, we don't see the kind of manufacturing disruptions we have seen in the past."
During the meeting Thursday, pharmaceutical manufacturer Aventis Pasteur Inc. announced the end of a two-year shortage of tetanus and diphtheria vaccines for adults and teenagers, known as Td.
"People who were asked to delay Td boosters during the last year should schedule appointments with their doctors to catch up," said Dr. William Schnaffner, a Vanderbilt University professor who is a member of the immunization group. "Furthermore, anyone who can't remember the last time they received a Td booster should call their doctor and ask if they are due."
Pass on the innoculation...
Posted: June 21, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
For many years now, the federal government has been usurping the powers of the states.
Today, state governments mostly consider themselves subservient to the will of Washington – gladly accepting marching orders, pathetically holding out their hands for money extracted from their own taxpayers and generally serving as an extension of the federal bureaucracy.
It is only in that context that one can begin to comprehend the nightmarish, Orwellian nature of the latest federal-state power grab.
It's called the Model State Health Powers Act.
Financed by the federal Centers for Disease Control, it was hatched in Washington with the cooperation of the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of City and County Health Officials and the National Association of Attorneys General.
It was a big topic of conversation at the recent NGA meeting in Boise, Idaho.
What's so scary about the MSHPA?
It is a law being introduced in all 50 state legislatures granting emergency powers to governors and public-health authorities – powers so sweeping they would make Benito Mussolini blush.
The act authorizes the collection of private medical data and other records on you and your family. It authorizes the "control of property" – a nice term for confiscation of everything, including – but not limited to – your house, your car, your guns, your food, your clothing and your fuel. It authorizes the management of people – meaning forced vaccinations, incarceration and restrictions on transportation. It also authorizes the government to seize control of communications.
Now, as I read that prescription, it smacks of tyranny. It reeks of fascism.
Under this model legislation, which is gaining steam across America, one man or woman – the governor – can declare a public-health emergency and assume all of the powers above.
Many believe that because this act came up after Sept. 11 that it has to do with bio-terrorism or nuclear or chemical attacks. But the public health emergency doesn't need to have any tie to terror.
Already, 11 states have passed emergency health powers acts based on this model. Another 22 are considering them. Only six states – Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Washington state – have rejected them.
This is serious stuff. It leaves me wondering if Americans are threatened more by terrorism or by the war on terrorism.
It appears our government no longer considers Osama bin Laden public enemy No. 1. Now it's Joe Citizen who finds himself in the crosshairs.
We're on the verge of losing our constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures. We're being desensitized as a people every day.
Maybe you don't think your governor is a threat to your personal freedom. Maybe you just think this is one more law that won't amount to a hill of beans or affect your life. Maybe you're right. Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
Remember, I told you that this legislation can only be understood in the context of the way Washington, D.C., has the states under its thumb. Remember where this legislation originated. Remember who paid for it. Remember who is pushing it.
This is no way to fight terrorism. We ought to be empowering the American people as soldiers, not reducing them to the enemy. We ought to be figuring out ways to protect the public, with shelters and air-filtration units and civil defense stockpiling. We ought to be asking the public to enlist in this war, not preparing to round them up and attack them.
This debacle is evidence of a failure of leadership at the very top – President Bush, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, etc. They have steadfastly rejected common-sense anti-terrorism measures such as firearms in the cockpits and instead favored a command-and-control bureaucracy building that will never make any of us safer.
It's easy being a civil libertarian when times are good – when there are no real threats on the horizon. The real challenge to constitutional government comes in times of crisis, in times of war, in times of attack.
There's no question we're in a real war against terrorism. But it's our own government, once again, that's really scaring me.
No one likes to think about these kinds of things and many resent mandatory immunizations but hepatitis can and does kill and you don't have to be morally decadent or an IV drug abuser to get it!
House GOP Drug Plan Covers Physicals
Mon Jun 17, 6:37 PM ET
By JANELLE CARTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - As baby boomers reach 65 and swell Medicare's patient rolls, the government will pay for a full physical examination for each under a prescription drug bill Republicans are advancing Tuesday.
"Over the long run it will save money," said Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., a chief architect of the prescription drug bill. "It will allow us to have early detection and treatment. It will greatly enhance their quality of life. It's long overdue."
Thomas, who announced the final Republican bill Monday, chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. It and the House Energy and Commerce Committee plan to begin consideration of the bill Tuesday and to have it next week before the full House for debate.
The physicals for millions of baby boomers would cost the government $2.5 billion over 10 years.
For Republicans, it's a way to capture some support and play down criticism of their prescription drug plan, which is two-thirds bigger than what President Bush ( news - web sites) wants but less than half what Democrats would give older Americans.
Shortly after Thomas briefed reporters on the bill, Sen. Edward Kennedy ( news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., released a statement declaring: "The House Republican plan fails the truth in advertising test. The benefits are inadequate."
Several consumer and senior organizations planned to announce their opposition Tuesday. "The Republican proposal provides no guarantees of anything," said Ronald Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal consumer group that is among organizations involved in Tuesday's news conference.
Pharmacists' groups sent a letter of opposition to House Speaker Dennis Hastert shortly after the plan was revealed Monday.
AARP, the nation's largest lobbying group for older people, withheld its full endorsement. "We are going to have to note that there is a funding problem," said Chris Hansen, AARP's director of advocacy.
The prescription drug plan is the centerpiece of an overall package that would cost $350 billion over 10 years. About $310 billion is allocated to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors.
The remaining $40 billion would pay for initiatives such as the physicals and a number of measures that give billions of additional dollars to hospitals, doctors and other health-care providers that service Medicare patients and have complained about rising health-care costs.
The plan is far different from Democratic plans, which spend considerably more and use the money solely for prescription drugs. Senate Democrats are promoting a $500 billion, 10-year plan, while House Democrats' proposal would cost $800 billion. Those plans have lower premiums, deductibles and co-payments.
Thomas dismissed critics who complained that Republicans weren't spending enough. The federal budget already was stretched, he said, and "this bill goes as far as we can go."
President Bush proposed $190 billion for a prescription drug benefit.
Under the House GOP plan, all but low-income seniors would be required to pay monthly premiums of $35 and meet a $250 yearly deductible.
The government would pay 80 percent of costs on the first $1,000 of drug costs and 50 percent on the next $1,000. Patients would then be responsible for costs of any drugs thereafter and would have to reach $4,500 in out-of-pocket spending before government help would kick in.
The bill also includes a provision for congressional investigators to study effects of drug company advertising aimed at customers, which has tripled since 1996.
Some advocates are questioning whether Congress can work through its sharp differences to get a bill to the White House.
"To pass something this year is an uphill climb, and we're talking about Himalayan standards, not Catskills standards," said Pollack, the Families USA president. "I think it's going to be very hard to bridge those differences in an election year."
___ On the Net: House Ways and Means Committee:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
Medicare:
http://www.medicare.gov/
Yes, but what are the odds? Compared to the odds of complications due to the vaccine?
It seems that informed consent is a better way to go than forcing parents to put medicine into their kids.
I got interested - so I'll answer my own question, somewhat...
From http://www.aap.org/policy/re9733.html:
Epidemiologic studies have suggested that household contact with an infected person may be associated with nonsexual transmission of HCV. Seroprevalence studies have found an average anti-HCV [antibody to HCV] rate of 4% (range, 0% to 11%) among household contacts with no other apparent risk factors for infection. If person-to-person transmission of HCV does occur in the household, it is most likely the result of direct contact with blood, and the risk appears to be extremely low.
This site has some data about risk factors for HCV. After reading it I come away completely unconcerned aout kids scraping their knees on the playground.
And, one more - Buried in there I found the following estimate of currently infected children:
...the National Health and Nutrition Epidemiological Survey (NHANES) estimates 0.2 percent of children under the age of 12...
And, that the vast majority of those got it from their infected mothers during childbirth.
So, that kind of answers the question of, "what are the odds of kids getting HCV?"
On to the odds of complications from immunizations...
Have you ever noticed that good statistics are hard to find? I found some on the Hep. B vaccine - I'll have to use those and extrapolate. From http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/hepatitisB2.htm:
The NVIC has studied Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act covering the last nine years on hepatitis B vaccine adverse events -- and in 1996 there were more than three times as many reported serious adverse reactions as reported cases of the disease in the 0 to 14 age group.
Now, granted, this is from someone with an axe to grind. His infant daughter died from a reaction to the vaccine. And, it's a carefully chosen statistic - just one of the 9 years' of data was cited - but it still is a powerful statistic: 3 times as many complications from the vaccine as reported cases.
Here's a juicy tidbit. Apparently complications from vaccinations is enough of a problem for there to be a federal program to pay off the victims. The US department of Health and Human Services has a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Well, I think the verict is not in yet, but I'll stick with no controversial vaccines for my children, thank you.
I've opted my son out of the Hep-B required immunization; the only way I could do it is based on "religous" beliefs (mind you, there is not an avenue to do so for "informed" belief...)
There are days my friend I sit here and look at what I read about what is happening to this country, and I look outside my window at God's green earth and I wonder how could this possibly be the America we once had.
Where will the madness end?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.