GlaxoSmithKline Earnings (and Marketing Agenda 2008)

GSK transcript:

Pharma + Professional Persecution = Profits!

Pharma + Professional Persecution = Profits!

Pharmaceutical Industries have few morals when it comes to dealing with professionals who step over the line and try to expose the adverse reactions to their vaccines and drugs.Of course the drug companies do not work alone, they foster strong connections with Governments,who in turn influence the medical profession and even the media. This allows the freedom to pedal their wares without the fear of reprisal. A whistle blowing professional is a spanner in their well oiled works and must be silenced quickly and efficiently, the methods the drug companies often use to do this can only be described as barbaric.

Of course one of the best ways in which to silence a troublesome professional is for them to be discredited, for once their reputation is completely destroyed, then no one is going to listen to what they have to say. It is surprising how many professionals who speak out about a vaccine or a drug suddenly find themselves with unusual complaints being sent into their Governing bodies or who have their work attacked unexpectedly.

Here there are several professionals who have complained about various vaccines and suddenly found themselves having to face disciplinary action because of complaints sent in to their Governing bodies.

First let us look at the case of the General Practitioner Peter Mansfield who works for the charity Desumo. Desumo, offered single Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccinations to parents who prefer them, to the MMR. Dr Mansfield was seen to be by many as a doctor with some controversial views on several health matters one being, that the MMR is unsafe.

He now joins the growing list of professionals that have been referred to their governing bodies for voicing their opinion and daring to speak out. His crime, to offer to parents who refuse to allow their children to have the MMR, single vaccinations instead. No big deal you may think but his actions infuriated the authorities who have invested vast sums of money into the MMR vaccination programme. His punishment for daring to go against them, was the General Medical Council dragging him up before the Intrim Orders committee, following a complaint from Worcester health authority, where Mansfield had been giving the the single jabs, alleging that he has been putting children “at risk” because his actions are “at variance with normal clinical practice”. The Department of Health does not permit the single measles vaccine on the NHS.

In a document called GMC Used by Pharma to Eliminate Competition Mr Clifford Miller a lawyer explains how the Pharmaceutical Industries use several organizations to eliminate practices and practitioners who go against Government policies. He writes:-

“There is information indicating that some parts of the pharmaceutical industry and medical professions have been targeting, and picking off one by one, doctors and others providing care and treatments which are not in the mainstream.Such treatments are likely to be less profitable to some parts of the drug industry and especially if they are allowed to become popular”

He continues to explain:-

“There is hard information which shows unequivocally that the ABPI (Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry) are implicated in setting up a case against Dr Wakefield and were involved with the Sunday Times behind the scenes, setting Dr Wakefield and colleagues up in 2003 for a GMC hearing before a word was printed by the Sunday Times in 2004. At the time it was an open boast that the ABPI were involved and were providing funding. Since then someone appears to have been trying (unsuccessfully) to batten down the hatches after the horse has bolted. There is also disturbing information regarding the case of Dr Peter Mansfield, who was also complained about to the GMC and had to face a hearing over the MMR vaccine.”

I have found many cases where professionals who have spoken out against various vaccines have had cases brought against them. Dr. Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D., is president of Genetic Centers of America. He has been a consultant and expert witness in many cases presented to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and in civil litigation.

…How do pharmaceutical companies and their lackeys in industry, media, politics and the legal system get away with burdening society with masses of poisonous and dangerous drugs, whilst suppressing research into natural and safer alternatives?”

With drug companies like Eli Lilly obtaining court orders to hide documents that show the company illegally marketed Zyprexa for unapproved uses and failed to warn the public about the serious health risks associated with the drug for a decade Read here and TeenScreen rife in the USA giving the drug companies a free hand to pedal their drugs in schools. read here Seemingly able to use marketing ploys to fool parents that their children are mentally ill, whilst bribing their children with incentives such as free cinema tickets and treats, to fill in questionnaires. I feel there is just one question remaining and that is, just how far will our drug companies go, when persecuting the professionals who stand in their way of making big bucks?

Full Article

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)

Dr. Paul Offit: Fox in a Henhouse, the ACIP Years (1998-2003)    By J.B. Handley


The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea. Within a day he was vomiting and eliminating blood. Doctors performed emergency surgery, saving him by repairing his intestines, which were folding in on one another. A doctor later figured out the vaccine caused Chaise’s problem. In October 1999, after 15 reports of such incidents, the CDC withdrew its recommendation for the vaccination — not because of the problem, the agency claims, but because bad publicity might give vaccines in general a bad name. But a four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC — and a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.”

….The Rotashield introduction and withdrawal was such a fiasco it triggered a Congressional investigation, and a blistering report from the Committee on Government Reform which was released on August 21, 2000 and titled, Conflicts in Vaccine Policy (HERE).
And who would you guess was at the center of the Congressional report’s criticism? You guessed it: Dr. Paul Offit.

People often ask me how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) went from recommending 10 vaccines for children in the mid-1980s to the bursting-at-the-seams 36 vaccine schedule of today. My answer, which always surprises people, is a four-letter acronym: ACIP.
ACIP? Most people have never heard of it, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Locked away inside a single page on the CDC website, the ACIP is described as:
“15 experts in fields associated with immunization who have been selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. The Committee develops written recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines to children and adults in the civilian population; recommendations include age for vaccine administration number of doses and dosing interval, and precautions and contraindications. The ACIP is the only entity in the federal government that makes such recommendations. [emphasis added].”
The ACIP is a remarkably powerful committee of appointees. Let’s say you’re Merck, a giant pharmaceutical company with vaccines as a primary business line. And, let’s say you have invested several hundred million dollars in developing a vaccine. Just for fun, let’s imagine the vaccine you have developed is for Rotavirus. Let’s say you would like to sell your vaccine to as many people as possible.
Well, if you’re Merck, and if you want to sell your new Rotavirus to as many people as possible, you can pass through one door and one door only: the ACIP. If the ACIP approves your vaccine, you can write your ticket. If the ACIP denies your vaccine? Zero. As Congress’ report notes:
“The recommendation [by the ACIP] for routine use of a vaccine is tantamount to a Federal mandate for vaccine use.”
It’s almost hard to comprehend the amount of pressure pharma would be under to “manage” the ACIP and give their vaccines the best possible chance for approval – there are literally billions of dollars at stake for a single vaccine.
Enter Dr. Paul Offit. With Merck’s funding and support, he filed a patent for a Merck-sponsored Rotavirus vaccine on December 9, 1994. Four years later, as his own vaccine was going through trials and no Rotavirus vaccines were YET on the U.S. vaccine schedule, Offit was appointed to the ACIP as a voting member of the committee.
Of course, Offit was well aware that a competing vaccine for Rotavirus made by Wyeth was years ahead of his own vaccine and preparing for a presentation to the ACIP in the near future. In fact, he joined the ACIP only three weeks before the committee voted to approve Wyeth’s Rotashield vaccine for the Vaccines for Children program (Offit voted “yes.”). What’s so bad about voting for another company’s vaccine for Rotavirus vaccine when you are developing a competing product? Congress explains:
“Members of the ACIP are allowed to vote on a recommendation for one company’s
vaccine even if they have financial ties to a competing firm developing a similar vaccine.
For example, in the case of the rotavirus vaccine, the vaccine before the advisory committee was developed by Wyeth-Lederle. However, Merck and SmithKline29 Beecham had rotavirus vaccines under development. A recommendation for Wyeth- Lederle’s vaccine would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck and SmithKline-Beecham. While ACIP members with ties to Wyeth-Lederle were not allowed to vote on recommendations for the rotavirus vaccine, those with ties to Merck and SmithKline-Beecham were allowed to vote.
This stands in stark contrast to the policies of the FDA. In discussions with FDA staff on this specific issue they informed the Committee staff that when the VRBPAC is deliberating the licensure of a vaccine, a company is considered affected [an affected company is one with a direct interest] if they are direct competitors of the manufacturer of the vaccine being considered. They further clarified that that this policy was in place because of the competing interest of the affected company and not because of concerns about the release of proprietary information.”
Dr. Paul Offit joined the ACIP three weeks before they voted on a Rotavirus vaccine manufactured by Wyeth to be added to the vaccine schedule. He held a patent on a competing vaccine. 
It’s almost incomprehensible, and certainly shows the worst of how pharma games the US Vaccine system. It’s hard to believe, but this story actually gets worse.
As we know from above, this initial vaccine that Paul Offit voted to approve was pulled from the market one short year later because of the level of adverse events affecting children. From the report:
“A product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”
Perhaps worse, and even more shocking, was the timing of the ACIP vote to approve Rotashield:
“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.”

Wait a minute. They approved the vaccine for universal use in kids before the FDA licensed the product? Why, that stands in rather marked contrast to the reassuring words of Dr. Renee Jenkins, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics:
“The vaccine schedule undergoes vigorous scientific and evidence-based review each year…The vaccine schedule has evolved over the past 50 years based on scientific evidence.”
It appears Paul Offit joined the ACIP to ensure he could influence the approval of the Rotavirus vaccine, from which he would later benefit greatly when his own version of rotavirus vaccine was approved. Not surprisingly, Paul Offit voted yes on every action he could relating to the approval of Wyeth’s vaccine. But, when the vaccine was being pulled from the market, Offit abstained:
“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. He stated at the meeting, ‘I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.'”
Approve it? “Yes.” Approve it? “Hell yes!” Approve it? “Absolutely.” It’s hurting a bunch of kids, we need to pull it! “Umm….I have a conflict, gotta go.”
On February 23, 2006 the ACIP voted to add Paul Offit’s vaccine, Rotateq, to the U.S. Immunization schedule. As we all know, Dr. Offit has conceded this vaccine “made him rich.” An analyst for Merck notes, “At a cost of $187.50 for the three-dose series, RotaTeq is one of the most expensive vaccines to date; by 2009, the company forecasts that the vaccine could bring in as much as $500 million in annual revenue.”
In May 2008, it was reported that, “Later in 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that there were 117 confirmed cases of intussusception among recipients of Rotateq between March 2006 and June 2007.”

Also, in 2008 it was reported that, “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an update to the product label for Merck & Co.’s Rotateq vaccine to include the report of a death of a recipient due to an intestinal obstruction.”
In 2008, Medical Science Monitor published a study critical of Paul Offit’s vaccine (HERE).
It stated: “This study found that, after a significant decline in intussusception adverse events entered into VAERS after the withdrawal of RotaShield, the previous rotavirus vaccine, a significant, rapid increase in intussusception adverse-event reports was observed after the licensing of RotaTeq, the current rotavirus vaccine, on February 3, 2006… From February 3, 2006 through July 31, 2007, a total of 160 (of the 165 reported) intussusception and 11 (of the 16 reported) Kawasaki disease adverse event reports were identified when RotaTeq was administered or co-administered with other vaccines. Time-trend analyses showed that there were significant increases in the total number of intussusception and Kawasaki disease adverse events entered into VAERS in comparison to previous years.”
And the study concluded:
“Based on the preceding realities, it would seem that the ACIP recommendations for the universal use of RotaTeq were, at best, premature and unwarranted. It is important that healthcare providers continue to report adverse events that occur following RotaTeq vaccine so that more information may be gleaned about its safety profi le, and those patients that may have experienced an adverse effect of RotaTeq vaccination should be advised that they may be eligible for compensation from the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
The acceptance of RotaTeq vaccination for the US market may be significantly limited by its apparent lack of economic savings, and given the fact that it may alter disease patterns of intussusception/ Kawasaki disease, so that they occur with greater frequency among segments of the population that previously had only limited experience with such conditions. Moreover, if the serious adverse events being reported following vaccination with RotaTeq are indeed vaccine related, then, like the previous rotavirus RotaShield, RotaTeq should be immediately withdrawn from the US market.”

As of January 2009, Rotateq remains on the market.

Lancet: Dozens of nations inflated vaccine numbers

Lancet: Dozens of nations inflated vaccine numbers

LONDON – Dozens of developing countries exaggerated figures on how many children were vaccinated against deadly diseases, which allowed them to get more money from U.N.-sponsored programs, a new study said Friday.

Research in the medical journal, The Lancet, said only half as many children were vaccinated than was claimed by countries taking part in special programs meant to reach kids in poor nations. The findings raise serious issues about vaccination programs — and whether money earmarked for children is actually reaching their intended recipients.

“With the unprecedented billions given by the international community, there is no excuse for these poor coverage rates,” said Philip Stevens, of the International Policy Network, a London-based think-tank. “One has to wonder where the money has gone — hopefully not into Swiss bank accounts.”

American researchers analyzed records of children supposedly vaccinated by initiatives led by the United Nations and related groups like the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, or GAVI.

The scientists examined reports the countries gave to the United Nations on how many children were immunized. They then compared those figures to independent surveys on vaccination conducted by non-governmental groups and other outside researchers.

The report did not focus on the tens of millions of children immunized globally each year. Instead, the researchers studied programs meant to increase the availability of vaccinations in poorer countries — vaccinations designed to reach kids who would not be covered otherwise.

From 1986 to 2006, the United Nations reported that 14 million children received immunizations in the programs. But the reports from the independent surveys put that number at just over 7 million.

“The magnitude of the gap is surprising,” said Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington and the study’s lead author.

Murray and colleagues found that at least 32 of the 51 countries taking part in the U.N.-backed programs over-reported by at least 50 percent how many children were protected against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough.

Experts suggest that inflating the numbers is part of a larger problem in attracting limited resources.

“That’s how you get money,” said Ken Hill, a public health professor at Harvard University who was not linked to the study. “You exaggerate the number of people who die or who you save to get visibility. Somehow, numbers always end up bigger than they would be otherwise.”

The global alliance pays developing countries $20 per extra vaccinated child — a payment that relies exclusively on reports from the countries.

Murray and colleagues estimated that the alliance should have paid countries $150 million. Instead, it paid them $290 million.

The report said the worst countries for over-reporting were Armenia, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Myanmar, none of which immunized any additional children at all.

Countries that reported vaccination numbers more than four times higher than surveys showed included Tajikistan, Pakistan, Togo, Lesotho, Liberia and Zambia.

Those overestimating immunizations by more than two times were Niger, Ivory Coast, Congo, Central African Republic, Guinea, Indonesia, Gambia, North Korea, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Nations that claimed at least 50 percent more vaccinations than were actually done included Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Ghana, Azerbaijan, Cameroon and Nepal.

Experts said the study raised questions about the credibility of other health data from the United Nations and countries.

Julian Lob-Levyt, the chief executive officer of the global vaccines alliance, said it would hold off on all payments until affected countries can clarify what is happening in their programs.

He also stressed that there was no evidence of corruption in any of the countries that had received money from the alliance.

Some experts worry that the Lancet study, which was paid for by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, overstated the problem and that immunization programs would be unfairly overhauled.

The United Nations has been criticized for its fluctuating figures in the past. In 2007, it dramatically slashed its HIV figures, citing new surveillance methods.


Have they stopped to think that many parents do NOT want those vaccines. They are hiding their children to keep them from being vaccinated, they are bullied, coerced and other. And dare we mention their clinical trials where these children are used as guinea pigs. Yes, the corruption goes on, inflating numbers has always gone on. This isn’t new news.

Also see:

Massachusetts Gift-Ban Bill Causes Another Ruckus

 St. Petersburg Times – “Drug makers spend hundreds of millions of dollars bringing a promising compound to the stage where it can be tested on humans — only to be stymied when subjects in developed countries are slow to sign up. So the companies have moved offshore in search of subjects, and now nearly half of all studies are conducted outside the United States. Brazil, Russia and China have been popular trial locales, but India is moving up fast, aggressively courting the drug study business.”

Doctors rethink costly vaccines

Doctors rethink costly vaccines

About one in 10 doctors who vaccinate privately insured children are considering dropping that service largely because they are losing money when they do it, according to a new survey.

A second survey revealed startling differences between what doctors pay for vaccines and what private health insurers reimburse: For example, one in 10 doctors lost money on one recommended infant vaccine, but others made almost $40 per dose on the same shot.

…The studies did not look at the 50 percent or more of vaccinations paid for by government, which generally provides free vaccines to doctors and covers administrative fees.

Full Article

Let me get this straight…the government pays for 50% + of the vaccines and administration costs given to doctors for free. Yet one vaccine they buy, and loose a few bucks on, is a problem? Am I missing something?Seriously, are you kidding me?!?!

This ‘money thing ‘ is exactly why parents are having problems finding Ped’s when they choose to delay/select or refuse all vaccines. It has never been about the best interests of your child. It’s always been about the money! So what do they want? A bailout too?


Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and Results

Bias, Spin, and Misreporting: Time for Full Access to Trial Protocols and Results

An-Wen Chan

Although randomized trials provide key guidance for how we practice medicine, trust in their published results has been eroded in recent years due to several high-profile cases of alleged data suppression, misrepresentation, and manipulation [1–5, 39]. While most publicized cases have involved pharmaceutical industry trials, accumulating empiric evidence has shown that selective reporting of results is a systemic problem afflicting all types of trials, including those with no commercial input [6]. These examples highlight the harmful potential impact of biased reporting on patient care, and the violation of ethical responsibilities of researchers and sponsors to disseminate results accurately and comprehensively.

Biased reporting arises when two main decisions are made based on the direction and statistical significance of the data—whether to publish the trial at all, and if so, which analyses and results to report in the publication. Strong evidence for the selective publication of positive trials has been available for decades [7,8]. More recent cohort studies have focused on the misreporting of trials within publications by comparing journal articles either with documents from regulatory agencies [9–12] or with trial protocols from research ethics committees [13–16], funding agencies [17], research groups [18,19], and journals [20]. These cohort studies identified major discrepancies—favorable results were often highlighted while unfavorable data were suppressed; definitions of primary outcomes were changed; and methods of statistical analysis were modified without explanation in the journal article.

…Overall, a substantial amount of primary outcome data submitted to the FDA was found to be missing from the literature. One quarter of trials in their sample were unpublished—predominantly those with unfavorable results. Not only were data suppressed for the unpublished trials, but an additional quarter of primary outcomes were omitted from journal articles of published trials. These findings are consistent with two recent reviews of FDA documents and journal articles [10,21], one of which was published in PLoS Medicine in September 2008 [21].


National Vaccine Registry

National Vaccine Registry


Vaccines are now recorded and registered with your state’s vaccination registry.


According to the CDC:


Immunization Information Systems are confidential, population-based, computerized information systems that attempt to collect vaccination data about all children within a geographic area. IIS are an important tool to increase and sustain high vaccination coverage by consolidating vaccination records of children from multiple providers, generating reminder and recall vaccination notices for each child, and providing official vaccination forms and vaccination coverage assessments. One of the national health objectives for 2010 is to increase to 95% the proportion of children aged <6 years who participate in fully operational population-based IIS.


If you look further down the page you will find this statement:


State law requires that information in the IIS be kept confidential. Only you, your doctor, or healthcare workers who can assist you have access to the information. The information will not be shared with any other people or any other agency. If you are not interested in having your child in the IIS, all you would need to do is contact your state IIS and request to “opt-out” of the registry.


Healthcare workers would include Department of Health, CDC, and other government monitoring agencies. Is your child’s school a healthcare agency? Last I knew they were in the education field, yet they have access to it as well. Even the WIC program has linkages. See also: WIC Policy for Immunization Screening and Referral


Is this “opt-out” provision true? Not entirely. New York State no longer allows an ‘opt-out’ provision. That means, all children regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not, are in the system. If this vaccine registry was solely for its stated purpose above, why would nonvaccinated children need to be in it? They don’t need reminder notices or updated vaccination forms, etc.


Will children with medical or religious exemptions need to be included in NYSIIS?

  • These children will be entered in NYSIIS and their records noted with the appropriate exemption. NYSIIS is a valuable tool to identify and protect these children in the event of an outbreak of a vaccine preventable disease. (bolding mine)


Why not call it what it is: identify, track, control, and discriminate.

I have heard many stories over the last few years of parents who ‘opted out’ in other states, yet they have found their child in the vaccine registry. Wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the HIPPA law?  No, and here is why:


Shalala Will Decide Privacy Rights If Congress Does Not Meet Deadline

 HIPAA provided that, if Congress does not enact legislation to create standards to protect individually identifiable health information in medical records by August 21, 1999, then the Secretary of HHS is required to establish rules governing how much information the government and other third parties can get out of private medical records by February 21, 2000. Currently, there are four medical privacy bills in the House and Senate, including the Health Care Personal Information Nondisclosure Act of 1999 (S.578-Senators Jeffords/Dodd); the Medical Information Protection Act of 1999 (S.881-Senator Bob Bennett) and the Medical Information Privacy and Security Act (S.573/H.R. 1057-Leahy/Kennedy).

All of these medical “privacy” bills allow extensive exemptions for unrestricted access and use of personal medical information in an individual’s medical records by anyone who invokes a right to access and use this information in the name of the public health including government officials, researchers and law enforcement officers. Citizens can be enrolled without their informed consent as research subjects in medical experiments if researchers make the case that the study will contribute to the public health.

This means that, without the individual’s informed consent, researchers working with government, industry and private physicians will be allowed unrestricted access to personal medical records for the purpose of enrolling unsuspecting patients in medical research experiments. Scientific researchers of the future could experiment on citizens with new drugs and vaccines. The elderly will not know whether the nursing home doctor urging the use of a new antidepressant or the family pediatrician recommending to a mother that her infant get 15 vaccines in one day, is making that recommendation because it is in the best interest of the individual or because the doctor has enrolled his patients in a government-endorsed medical experiment.


 Often, when these parents have requested to opt-out, they have been given false information from the Department of Health or have had to jump through hoops to get their child’s name removed. I seriously question if their name is ever entirely removed.


 The AAP’s stance:

The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to support the development and implementation of immunization information systems, previously referred to as immunization registries, and other systems for the benefit of children, pediatricians, and their communities. Pediatricians and others must be aware of the value that immunization information systems have for society, the potential fiscal influences on their practice, the costs and benefits, and areas for future improvement.


Yes, the almighty dollar sign right in the first paragraph…cha-ching!


How did the National Vaccine registry come about? Who or where does it get its funding from?

 All Kids Count

 The All Kids Count II program, funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) from 1998-2000, sought to make 16 immunization registry projects based in local, county, and state health departments fully operational by January 1, 2000. The program also sought to develop a long-term policy to ensure registries are implemented and sustained nationwide. The program built on progress made under All Kids Count Phase I, 1992-1997, an RWJF program to begin the development of registries.

The national program office was based at the Task Force for Child Survival and Development in Atlanta With guidance from the program’s National Advisory Committee, the national program office gave grants ranging from $300,000 to $700,000 to 16 projects.

RWJF’s Board of Trustees authorized up to $11.25 million for phase II beginning in 1997.


…In late 1997, public policy set the stage for All Kids Count projects and other state and community registries to take a giant step forward. President Bill Clinton issued a presidential directive to Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala “to start working with states on an integrated immunization registry system … we have to do it and do it right.”


As a result, an Initiative on Immunization Registries was undertaken by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), with support from the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) and the National Immunization Program of the CDC.

At the same time, more communities and states were developing or implementing registries. In 1998, when All Kids Count II began:


All 50 states had begun developing immunization registries.

Some 18 states had a law or rule authorizing immunization registries.

Ten states and several cities had mandated private provider reporting of immunizations to registries.

In 2001, 25 states had a law or rule authorizing immunization registries, and several states planned to introduce legislation or rules authorizing registries.

 …Educational Effort
All Kids Count began an intensive effort with immunization partners, especially the National Immunization Program, American Academy of Pediatrics and Every Child by Two (a non-profit organization that raises awareness of the importance of getting children fully immunized by the time they are two years old) to inform policymakers about the benefits, costs, and savings of registries, and the need to find a sustained source of funding if the promise of registries were to be realized.

 …The education effort culminated in a legislative briefing held May 1, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Hosted by former First Lady Rosalynn Carter and Mrs. Betty Bumpers, co-founders of Every Child by Two, the briefing had bi-partisan sponsorship from members of the Senate and House. Leading health organizations, health care professional organizations, and education organizations co-sponsored the briefing.

Carter and Bumpers urged legislators to find the political will and financial backing for development of immunization registries.

 New Federal Attention and Funding

…The education effort paid off. At the July 2000 National Immunization Conference, Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala promised support through the Medicaid program.

In Fall 2000, Medicaid announced its commitment to fund development and implementation of immunization registries at an enhanced rate of up to 90 percent matching funds for registry costs associated with Medicaid-eligible children (approximately 26 percent of children under age 7).


In June 2000, the Institute of Medicine issued Calling the Shots: Immunization Finance Police and Practices, a report on the future of the nation’s immunization system. It noted that community immunization information systems are an important tool to help keep children from but that a commitment must be made to ensure their success.


The report, approved by NVAC in January 2001, recommended:

 Continued and increased support for registries through the federal immunization grant program.

Wide promotion of use of Medicaid funds for registries.

Seeking approval to use the CDC’s Vaccines for Children operational funds for registries.

Discussions with insurers/health plans urging them to provide support for registries.

Development of a five-year, $60-million a year grant program to support further development and initial operation of registries.


…As All Kids Count II closed in 2001, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded All Kids Count for three years to develop a vision for information systems that will integrate data about multiple health services.


 Immunization Registry Strategic Plan 2002-2007

Medicare and Medicaid funding

Federal Direct Assistance Grant Funds

Research Grants

Is Science What You Think it is?

Is Science What You Think it is?



What is Science? According to Wikipedia it is defined as:


Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “knowing”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.


Science is ultimately about discovery and discovering ‘new’ laws of nature that have existed since the beginning of time.  Science gets its foundation from mathematics as it provides the methods to compose, correlate, model, analyze, and predict. Statistics, on the other hand, is something that can be misused due to suppression of data, misinterpretation of data, poorly designed experiments, and passing off fiction as fact. Science relies on experiments which have to be reproducible. Experiments should be large (population size, racial, economical, and social for instance) and double blind. Only the product(s) you wish to test should be in the experiment to be truly ‘double blind’. The placebo effect must also be taken into consideration.




Real Science should begin with no conclusions because the scientist is searching for truth and they don’t know what that truth is yet. They would do this by forming a hypothesis, make predictions for the hypothesis, and then test the predictions. The research would then reject or revise the hypothesis. Real science will point out flaws in their research, while junk science pretends there is none. Is raw data really ‘raw’? No, because it is what you planned from the start. The whole experiment from the theory, structure, system, what you believe, what you test, and how you test, etc. will be based on preconceptions. Truth will become what the structure says it is from the very start. The hypothesis will control what science does and will control all the details. So is it truly 100% objective? A hypothesis can be strong, and the belief held that it is correct, which could make things be seen that are not truly there. Some investigations and research end up being left ‘unfinished’ if it looks like the results contradict an accepted view or don’t meet the expected hypothesis.


(McComas, William, Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know…., Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.)


Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws



This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was “just a theory.” The president’s misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until “lawness” has been bestowed upon it.



Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess


The term hypothesis has at least three definitions, and for that reason, should be abandoned, or at least used with caution. For instance, when Newton said that he framed no hypothesis as to the cause of gravity he was saying that he had no speculation about an explanation of why the law of gravity operates as it does. In this case, Newton used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory.


Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists



…The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge


Scientists formulate laws and theories that are supposed to hold true in all places and for all time but the problem of induction makes such a guarantee impossible


The nature of induction itself is another interesting aspect associated with this myth. If we set aside the problem of induction momentarily, there is still the issue of how scientists make the final leap from the mass of evidence to the conclusion. In an idealized view of induction, the accumulated evidence will simply result in the production of a new law or theory in a procedural or mechanical fashion. In reality, there is no such method. The issue is far more complex — and interesting –than that. The final creative leap from evidence to scientific knowledge is the focus of another myth of science.



Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof


The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue…whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist’s mind to change are issues worth exploring.


Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative


Induction makes use of individual facts that are collected, analyzed and examined. Some observers may perceive a pattern in these data and propose a law in response, but there is no logical or procedural method by which the pattern is suggested. With a theory, the issue is much the same. Only the creativity of the individual scientist permits the discovery of laws and the invention of theories. If there truly was a single scientific method, two individuals with the same expertise could review the same facts and reach identical conclusions. There is no guarantee of this because the range and nature of creativity is a personal attribute.


Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions


Philosophers of science have found it useful to refer to the work of Karl Popper (1968) and his principle of falsifiability to provide an operational definition of science. Popper believed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas.


Science simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions.



Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective



contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.


Many philosophers of science support Popper’s (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas…. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence.


Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone’s ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias…. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists’s prior knowledge. In earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further complicates the situation.



…scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print.



Myth 9. Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge



…True experiments involve carefully orchestrated procedures along with control and test groups usually with the goal of establishing a cause and effect relationship. Of course, true experimentation is a useful tool in science, but is not the sole route to knowledge.


… Scientific knowledge is gained in a variety of ways including observation, analysis, speculation, library investigation and experimentation.



Myth 10.  All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.


… professional scientists are also constantly reviewing each other’s experiments to check up on each other. Unfortunately, while such a check and balance system would be useful, the number of findings from one scientist checked by others is vanishingly small In reality, most scientists are simply too busy and research funds too limited for this type of review.


The result of the lack of oversight has recently put science itself under suspicion. With the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. However, even without fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research published, and the pressure to produce new information rather than reproduce others’ work dramatically increases the chance that errors will go unnoticed.




What is Junk Science? Junk science is defined by Wikipedia as:


Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate’s claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. “Junk science” is often counterposed to “sound science“, a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser’s point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.


So basically, junk science is scientific data and analysis that is ‘faulty’ and used to advance hidden agendas. Who then uses Junk Science?



1. The media for attention-getting headlines, and/or used for social or political agendas.


2. Social Activists to achieve social or political gain/change or to change beliefs.


3. Injury lawyers to award compensation and win large verdicts.


4. Government regulators as a way to increase budgets or expand their authority.


5. Individual Scientists to achieve fortune, fame, and can be used by the government for   their purposes.


6.  Businesses to make negative claims against their competitors.


7.  Politicians to gain favor with activist groups.



Junk Science, or otherwise known as pseudoscience, has no single ‘test’ that distinguishes it between science and junk science. There are differences that can become apparent and these differences are consistent. For instance:


1.  The primary goal of science is to achieve a more complete and more unified understanding of the physical world.


Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.



2.  Most scientific fields are the subjects of intense research which result in the continual expansion of knowledge in the discipline.


Pseudosciences -The field has evolved very little since it was first established. The small amount of research and experimentation that is carried out is generally done more to justify the belief than to extend it.



3.  Science-Workers in the field commonly seek out counterexamples or findings that appear to be inconsistent with accepted theories.


In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.



4.  Observations or data that are not consistent with current scientific understanding, once shown to be credible, generate intense interest among scientists and stimulate additional studies.


Pseudosciences – Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed.


5.  Science is a process in which each principle must be tested in the crucible of experience and remains subject to being questioned or rejected at any time.


Pseudosciences – The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.


6.  Scientific ideas and concepts must stand or fall on their own merits, based on existing knowledge and on evidence.


Pseudoscientific concepts tend to be shaped by individual egos and personalities, almost always by individuals who are not in contact with mainstream science. They often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.



7.  Scientific explanations must be stated in clear, unambiguous terms.


Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.




How is Junk Science used in public relations? Most often it is in the disguise of public ‘health’ or ‘environment protection’. They will seek to prove conclusions are true for an economic profit. It is often done by attaching famous ‘scientists’ names. Only when it becomes too obvious to hide the truth, will a quiet phase out take place. Anyone who speaks out against the agenda, that is bought and paid for, will be debunked and labeled ‘junk science’, even if it is true. What is often deemed ‘junk science’, by those in a higher standing in the scientific community, defends something that threatens the health agenda or the environment for the good of all. be continued


Propaganda in Pictures

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.

Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion


Propaganda through pictures whether it be magazine ads, posters, banners, bumber stickers, television, or brochures are messages aimed at influencing opinions or behaviors of people.  It is acheived through emotion rather than a fully informed information. It seeks to change the way people perceive or understand an issue for the sole purpose of changing their actions that are desirable to the propagandist.

Propaganda can appeal to fear, demoralize the opposing viewpoint, cherry-pick their information, use virtue words, oversimplify, print misinformation, to name a few.

Let’s look at some of the vaccine propaganda using pictures:


Message: Vaccinate no matter what at every opportunity. (But is it in your best interest or theirs?)


Would you want your gray hair to be compared to your immune system? Are they implying because you are over 50, you aren’t healthy?
Time Magazine said it, therefore it must be true.
Appeal to the kids and parents alike.
Message: For the kids who like sports and shots are the goal(winners)
Message: FEAR and Disease
Message: You can’t have a healthy baby without a flu vaccine.
Message: All it takes is one shot and your protected!..It’s that easy!
Message: Persuading young girls they will be protected from cervical cancer.
Message: the virtue words-love and protect.
Anti-Vaccine :
Message: The virtue words-love and protect. Fear-chronic disease.
Message: Question the opposing view of their motives.
Message: Compare the past with today. Question the opposing view.  Playing the fear factor card.
Message:  Fear-Compare a bullet to toxins in vaccines.
Which do you think is more effective? Are any effective? Do you think people have their minds already made up and filter out the opposing side?

FDA and tainted PR Deal

publicrelationsFDA Tackles Image Problem With Tainted PR Deal

Trust Us We’re the Experts…Or Are We?

  Trust Us We’re the Experts…Or Are We?

What is an expert? An expert is defined as:

An “expert” is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual’s opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

When it comes to the vaccine issue, is it enough to just listen to the ‘experts’ that the pharma industry or media promotes before us? Are they nonbiased? Do they have really place the publics best interests first? Do they  promote or report the ‘experts’ research as factual and true? Let’s take a look.

How to Sell a Vaccine Program

First we have what is called the ‘Father of Spin’. The Father of Spin can mask an agenda and create illusions that deceive or misrepresnt the true agenda for marketing pruposes. It formulates all the rules or guidelines for creating a public opinion. It’s focus is not on facts, but on emotion. When you focus on emotion, people can be led to believe almost anything. Examples of Headlines:

What they don’t tell you…

  • Multiple teenagers got the Measles..were they vaccinated or unvaccinated. If you have read the Trading Places blog section here, you would see the vaccinated are coming down with Measles in this age group at higher porportions than in the pre-vaccine era. But they don’t mention this.

  • The Mother of the twins was 15 years old which does make a difference. Again, read the Trading Places blog section and you will see why. Also, they don’t say exactly how old the twins were, nor if they had any other health conditions, if they were treated with antibiotics, or were vitamin C deficient, which all make a difference as well.

  • The Shingles vaccine shows “promise”. Where is the efficacy rate? It was also not stated that the reason Shingles cases have gone up is due to the universal Varicella recommendation and mandates for children. The trial patients were followed up on for 3 to 5 years. What happens after that? Was it tested on older persons with an immunodeficiency or other health problems?

Secondly, comes the “Smoke and Mirrors’.  Its objective is to control the public without them realizing it. The public is a ‘herd that needs to be led’. An agenda or concept is put into a favorable light and the public is simply expected to believe and follow it. The vaccine agenda is to get the public to accept the vaccine campaign for the ‘good of the herd’, and in turn, every vaccine recommended or put on the market will be injected without question; whenever the ‘experts’ say so. To accomplish this, they must also reach out to those who do not wish to vaccinate, and try and change their minds, attitudes and behavior. Most of this is done solely through the media. A 1997 WHO publication sums it up nicely:

pg 43: “The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the ‘health consciousness’ of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local leaders, and other partners need to be used to reach this objective.”


Who are those ‘other partners’?  Those are the institutions and foundations that are set up and financed by the industries whose products need to be evaluated, trialed, and eventually sold. These so-called independent agencies produce the scientific studies and press materials that create whatever view they want to portray. This can be achieved by creating canned news releases which are molded to the news format. Unless you were to research this yourself, how would you know the difference? Front groups are also created. Their sole objectives are to advance the agenda of the corporations that fund them. Example:

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

There are two types of ‘experts’. The first are PR ‘spin’ doctors who are behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and are best used when people are unaware they are even being led. The independent ‘experts’ on the other hand, are publically known, cherry-picked, and paid to promote the views of the corporations who pay them. Sports figures, movie stars, etc., are all third parties who are used to promote the agenda.


Third, is the money. Corporations bring in or hire new people whose job is to develop new ideas and/or services that can be sold to the public. People are the means to the money and it doesn’t matter how it gets sold as long as it does. 

United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric of Public Collaboration:

“Vaccine companies, like larger pharmaceutical companies, seek a profit by selling products.”

“…candidate vaccines are more likely to be aggressively developed and evaluated when there is a potential for providing a substantial economic return–vaccines for which there is a large potential market, particularly in the United States and other developed nations.

“This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development across the board.”



The NIH, CDC, DOH, FDA, DOD, NVAC, USAID, ACIP, and AAP are all included in the agenda. Money rules in the pharma world.


Next, comes the Players. The Players create the credibility by using the 3rd party endorsements that will help create the opinion.  News media does not generally investigate independent experts ties with front groups nor reveal their corportate funding or propaganda agenda. The front groups job is solely to promote the agenda to the public through press releases, molded in the news format. Since journalist do not have to research the subject themselves, how do you know it’s really true? Your expected to take their word for it and they assume you will.

Conventional wisdom can be defined as:

Conventional wisdom (CW) is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold.

 Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true. Many urban legends, for example, are accepted on the basis of being “conventional wisdom”. Conventional wisdom is also often seen as an obstacle to introducing new theories, explanations, and so as an obstacle that must be overcome by such revisionism. This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view. This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn’t conflict reality so blatantly.

The concept of Conventional Wisdom also is applied or implied in political senses, often related closely with the phenomenon of Talking Points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true.


Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’. Some characteristics of good propaganda are:

  • use emotionally positive words
  • use emotionally negative words or dehumanize the opposition name calling and labels
  • Use celebrities, churches, sports figures to talk for you
  • Avoid moral issues, only point out the benefits, and don’t say anything memorable
  • Stall for time, cover-up, distract, and don’t use plain english

Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’.  The scientific manipulation of public mass opinion is extremely important because it must appeal to the ‘unconscious motivation’, and makes people susceptible to leadership. Their job is to keep the public in a state of uncertainty and fear. Fear and Uncertainty keep people coming back for more. The media will rarely report stories which it considers to be against the ‘public health’ agenda of the DOH or the Pharma industry. The agendas or policies can and do change to suit their needs, not the needs of the people.

Modern propaganda creates and influences the information the public are led to believe without question. You have to control what people think, in order to get them to buy into your agenda.

“Scientific accuracy of results is not to be expected, because many of the elements of the situation must always be beyond his control. He may know with a fair degree of certainty that under favorable circumstances an international flight will produce a spirit of good will, making possible even the consummation of political programs. But he cannot be sure that some unexpected event will not overshadow this flight in the public interest, or that some other aviator may not do something more spectacular the day before. Even in his restricted field of public psychology there must always be a wide margin of error. Propaganda, like economics and sociology, can never be an exact science for the reason that its subject-matter, like theirs, deals with human beings.”



Propaganda by Bernay

Trust Us, We’re Experts



     If your child were to receive IPV, MMR, and Hepatitis B vaccines all on the same day, how many vaccines would they be receiving? Would you say 3 or perhaps 5? If you said 7, you would be correct! Ipv is made up of three strains, while MMR is Measles, Mumps, and Rubella, and then Hepatitis B.


     Now, let’s try another. If your child were to receive Gardasil, Boostrix, and Prevnar vaccines on the same day, how many vaccines would they receive? Would it be 3, 8, or perhaps 14? If you said 14 you would be correct! Gardasil contains 4 strains of HPV, Boostrix is three vaccines for diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus, and Prevnar contains seven strains.


     Now look at the difference in vaccine names between the first and the second paragraph. The vaccines of the ‘old days’, we all know them…IPV, OPV, MMR, Hepatitis B, DTP, etc. The new vaccines of today have names such as Gardasil, Boostrix, or Prevnar. There is a reason for this.


    As more multiple vaccines are made and more vaccines added to the recommended schedule put out by the CDC, we have and will start seeing more ‘whimsical’ names applied to them. It’s a strategic marketing ploy to make you think you are only getting one or two vaccines in one day when the reality is, you may be getting 6, 10, 14 or more!


      The names are thoughtfully planned out as well. Take Boostrix for instance. It’s a Tdap vaccine for older children vs. DTaP for infants. Saying Boostrix might make the parent believe it’s super charged! for protection, and for children, it might take the fear away and be a soothing word to them. What does Rotateq make you think of? I don’t know about you, but it makes me think of ‘Roto Rooter’ which symbolizes a problem with the plumbing of course! (The vaccine includes 5 strains of Rotavirus in case you didn’t know) Why not call Prevnar simply PCV7 or Pneumococcal, since that is what it is! The name Prevnar can denote ‘prevention’ in the minds of parents. (with such a low efficacy rate does it really prevent?)


      Ah yes, there is rhyme and reason to the vaccine names today make no mistake about it! Coming soon…more on marketing ploys and how they hoodwink and further deceive you.