Thursday, May 16, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1888

    Candidates Skip Votes on Iraq, Other Issues While Attacking Iraq Policy

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — The job of an elected official is, in part, to vote on legislation put before them. The job of a political candidate is, in part, to campaign so as to meet as many people as possible. Therein lies the conflict. Several Democrat presidential candidates have missed a significant number of votes on Capitol Hill, including important votes dealing with Iraq, while campaigning for the White House and attacking President George W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq conflict.

    Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) on Sunday was in New Hampshire explaining to voters how Democrats are better at handling the economy. “When Democrats hold office, we do better; the pie grows for everybody,” he reportedly told voters in that first-in-the-nation primary state. Last Friday, Gephardt told voters Bush was the “worst” president he had served with during his time on Capitol Hill.

    The Union Leader quoted Gephardt as saying, “George [W.] Bush is the worst president I’ve served with, and I’ve served with five. I’m becoming nostalgic even for Reagan. … I might even be nostalgic for Nixon.”

    What hasn’t Gephardt been doing? Casting votes on Capitol Hill. Congressional Quarterly has been tracking votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during this session. There have been 397 votes cast in the 108th session in the House and 290 votes cast in the Senate. So far, Gephardt has missed 356 (90%) House votes.

    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) campaigned last Wednesday in the Bronx. Kerry attacked Bush’s record on fighting terrorism and protecting Americans from terrorists. “Nearly two years ago, President Bush came to New York and stood at Ground Zero and gave his commitment. I wish the President would come back now and ask first defenders whether the commitment has been kept,” Kerry said. “We cannot afford to leave the frontlines of homeland security without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq.”

    Kerry continued, “And let me state it plainly: Just as we did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today we still do not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack.”

    Kerry and his fellow White House hopefuls have been pressing hard against the Bush administration on Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry, however, missed votes this year that dealt with Iraq’s reconstruction and the Iraqi Intelligence Commission. In total, Kerry has missed 52 percent of the votes cast in the Senate this year.

    CQ did not include the two votes Kerry missed due to surgery and recovery in February.

    Most of the others among the Democrat field have also missed votes this year. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has missed 115 votes as of Monday. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who announced his candidacy in May, has missed 72 votes. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has missed 20 percent of the votes cast this year.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), though not as dominant as the others in recent national polls, has not missed a single vote this year. Kucinich has been an outspoken critic of the administration and was one of the few legislators who voted against supporting the military action against Iraq.

    Copyright

    Candidates Skip Votes on Iraq, Other Issues While Attacking Iraq Policy

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — The job of an elected official is, in part, to vote on legislation put before them. The job of a political candidate is, in part, to campaign so as to meet as many people as possible. Therein lies the conflict. Several Democrat presidential candidates have missed a significant number of votes on Capitol Hill, including important votes dealing with Iraq, while campaigning for the White House and attacking President George W. Bush for his handling of the Iraq conflict.

    Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) on Sunday was in New Hampshire explaining to voters how Democrats are better at handling the economy. “When Democrats hold office, we do better; the pie grows for everybody,” he reportedly told voters in that first-in-the-nation primary state. Last Friday, Gephardt told voters Bush was the “worst” president he had served with during his time on Capitol Hill.

    The Union Leader quoted Gephardt as saying, “George [W.] Bush is the worst president I’ve served with, and I’ve served with five. I’m becoming nostalgic even for Reagan. … I might even be nostalgic for Nixon.”

    What hasn’t Gephardt been doing? Casting votes on Capitol Hill. Congressional Quarterly has been tracking votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during this session. There have been 397 votes cast in the 108th session in the House and 290 votes cast in the Senate. So far, Gephardt has missed 356 (90%) House votes.

    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) campaigned last Wednesday in the Bronx. Kerry attacked Bush’s record on fighting terrorism and protecting Americans from terrorists. “Nearly two years ago, President Bush came to New York and stood at Ground Zero and gave his commitment. I wish the President would come back now and ask first defenders whether the commitment has been kept,” Kerry said. “We cannot afford to leave the frontlines of homeland security without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq.”

    Kerry continued, “And let me state it plainly: Just as we did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today we still do not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack.”

    Kerry and his fellow White House hopefuls have been pressing hard against the Bush administration on Iraq and the war on terror. Kerry, however, missed votes this year that dealt with Iraq’s reconstruction and the Iraqi Intelligence Commission. In total, Kerry has missed 52 percent of the votes cast in the Senate this year.

    CQ did not include the two votes Kerry missed due to surgery and recovery in February.

    Most of the others among the Democrat field have also missed votes this year. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has missed 115 votes as of Monday. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who announced his candidacy in May, has missed 72 votes. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) has missed 20 percent of the votes cast this year.

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), though not as dominant as the others in recent national polls, has not missed a single vote this year. Kucinich has been an outspoken critic of the administration and was one of the few legislators who voted against supporting the military action against Iraq.

    Copyright

    Analysis: New York Times Article Misrepresents New White House Web Mail System

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — A recent New York Times article takes aim at the Bush administration by criticizing the new Web mail service recently introduced on the White House Web site. The Web mail service is designed as an alternative means of communicating with President Bush other than sending a simple email message.

    However, the New York Times story by John Markoff distorts the nature of the White House’s new Web mail service with reporting bias and incorrect information, a Talon News investigation has determined.

    The article, published on Friday, suggests that the White House has essentially replaced its old email contact for President Bush (president@whitehouse.gov) with a new, cumbersome, “less user-friendly” setup designed to discourage Internet users from providing the President with their opinions.

    The article derives its premise entirely from the unsupported assertion of liberal AFL-CIO online organizer Tom Matzzie, who claims that he received an autoresponse email from the White House Web site telling him that he had to send his protest letter via the new format.

    Matzzie works for the AFL-CIO public affairs department and has developed software to aid nationwide union organization efforts.

    Additionally, a Talon News investigation has determined that Matzzie coordinated list serves for working groups of the so-called Mobilization for Global Justice (MGJ) organization. The MGJ has organized “anti-capitalist convergences” in front of the IMF and World Bank, which it wants to shut down for causing an “economic smallpox.”

    Matzzie was one of only three people interviewed for the article, and the only one asked his opinion as an actual user of the Web mail system.

    Talon News tested the president’s email address, and it continues to function properly. The autoresponse e-mail which senders get in return now suggests using the new Web mail system as an alternate and more effective means of communication.

    The new Web mail system is intended as an enhancement to the president’s traditional online correspondence methods. President Bush receives more than 15,000 emails every day.

    The new system asks users to report whether they are providing a supporting comment or a differing opinion (“supporting comment” is autoselected) and to select the category and subcategory of their message. For example, one might write a supporting comment with the category “social” and the subcategory “prayer in schools.”

    Subsequent forms ask the user for his or her contact information and allow the user to type a message in a form. Once the form is submitted, a follow-up email is automatically sent to the user’s email account. Once the user replies to the email, the original message is read, and a personalized response from White House staffers is sent within 1 to 3 days.

    By extensively categorizing e-mails and ensuring that correspondence is legitimate, the White House is better equipped to send a personalized response. One would not learn this by reading the Times article. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the customized response available under the new system is unprecedented. Rather, it mentions that this response is not available under the traditional system.

    Markoff takes all of his quotes defending the system from White House Spokesman Jimmy Orr, who is the Bush administration’s Internet news director. Yet almost all such quotes are essentially copied and pasted from the White House Web site — see: https://www.whitehouse.gov — or from the autoresponse email, and are thus extremely generic.

    “[Web mail] provides an additional means for individuals to inquire about policy issues at the White House and get a personalized response in 24 to 48 hours,” one such quote from Orr reads.

    Markoff then claims that some experts in Internet usability think the new method for sending messages is “not doing much to enhance communications between the White House and the public,” yet only quotes a single Web design expert.

    The article ends with a string of critical quotes from Matzzie, who describes himself as a Web design expert. Matzzie claimed that he had not yet received an e-mail response. Talon News tested the Web mail service, and received responses to all its test e-mails within 5 minutes. However, the personalized response takes 1-3 days longer than the automatic response.

    Another self-described web designer posting on a message board hosted by Yahoo! for discussing the article brought Matzzie and Markoff to task, as well as Yahoo! itself, which made the decision to run it as a top story.

    “With all due respect to ‘Mr. Matzzie,’ [sic] the alleged ‘professional Web site designer’ (how many times have I heard ”’that”’ dubious claim in the last seven years?), the WH email ‘upgrade’ replaced an open architecture response system with a structured system very similar to CRM feedback at a retailer or service company,” the response read in part. “This professional Web designer’s conclusion: Another hatchet job by Yahoo’s ultra-leftist editors, and the Web site is only ‘less user-friendly’ to the computer-incompetent.”

    The Markoff article also listed a number of essentially misplaced critiques by Jakob Nielsen of Nielsen Norman Group, who complained about “a deeply buried privacy policy and a lack of indicators marking one’s progress in traversing each of the multiple Web page steps.” Nielsen also complained about “a poorly designed approach to confirming that a message had actually been sent.”

    Nielsen’s complaints do not square with the actual site. The privacy policy is available in the list of FAQs, one click away from the main Web mail page. Once a user submits a message, a confirmation page immediately loads asking whether the user wants to submit any more messages. A navigation bar is at the top of every single page in the Web mail system.

    Copyright

    Analysis: New York Times Article Misrepresents New White House Web Mail System

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — A recent New York Times article takes aim at the Bush administration by criticizing the new Web mail service recently introduced on the White House Web site. The Web mail service is designed as an alternative means of communicating with President Bush other than sending a simple email message.

    However, the New York Times story by John Markoff distorts the nature of the White House’s new Web mail service with reporting bias and incorrect information, a Talon News investigation has determined.

    The article, published on Friday, suggests that the White House has essentially replaced its old email contact for President Bush (president@whitehouse.gov) with a new, cumbersome, “less user-friendly” setup designed to discourage Internet users from providing the President with their opinions.

    The article derives its premise entirely from the unsupported assertion of liberal AFL-CIO online organizer Tom Matzzie, who claims that he received an autoresponse email from the White House Web site telling him that he had to send his protest letter via the new format.

    Matzzie works for the AFL-CIO public affairs department and has developed software to aid nationwide union organization efforts.

    Additionally, a Talon News investigation has determined that Matzzie coordinated list serves for working groups of the so-called Mobilization for Global Justice (MGJ) organization. The MGJ has organized “anti-capitalist convergences” in front of the IMF and World Bank, which it wants to shut down for causing an “economic smallpox.”

    Matzzie was one of only three people interviewed for the article, and the only one asked his opinion as an actual user of the Web mail system.

    Talon News tested the president’s email address, and it continues to function properly. The autoresponse e-mail which senders get in return now suggests using the new Web mail system as an alternate and more effective means of communication.

    The new Web mail system is intended as an enhancement to the president’s traditional online correspondence methods. President Bush receives more than 15,000 emails every day.

    The new system asks users to report whether they are providing a supporting comment or a differing opinion (“supporting comment” is autoselected) and to select the category and subcategory of their message. For example, one might write a supporting comment with the category “social” and the subcategory “prayer in schools.”

    Subsequent forms ask the user for his or her contact information and allow the user to type a message in a form. Once the form is submitted, a follow-up email is automatically sent to the user’s email account. Once the user replies to the email, the original message is read, and a personalized response from White House staffers is sent within 1 to 3 days.

    By extensively categorizing e-mails and ensuring that correspondence is legitimate, the White House is better equipped to send a personalized response. One would not learn this by reading the Times article. Nowhere in the article does it mention that the customized response available under the new system is unprecedented. Rather, it mentions that this response is not available under the traditional system.

    Markoff takes all of his quotes defending the system from White House Spokesman Jimmy Orr, who is the Bush administration’s Internet news director. Yet almost all such quotes are essentially copied and pasted from the White House Web site — see: https://www.whitehouse.gov — or from the autoresponse email, and are thus extremely generic.

    “[Web mail] provides an additional means for individuals to inquire about policy issues at the White House and get a personalized response in 24 to 48 hours,” one such quote from Orr reads.

    Markoff then claims that some experts in Internet usability think the new method for sending messages is “not doing much to enhance communications between the White House and the public,” yet only quotes a single Web design expert.

    The article ends with a string of critical quotes from Matzzie, who describes himself as a Web design expert. Matzzie claimed that he had not yet received an e-mail response. Talon News tested the Web mail service, and received responses to all its test e-mails within 5 minutes. However, the personalized response takes 1-3 days longer than the automatic response.

    Another self-described web designer posting on a message board hosted by Yahoo! for discussing the article brought Matzzie and Markoff to task, as well as Yahoo! itself, which made the decision to run it as a top story.

    “With all due respect to ‘Mr. Matzzie,’ [sic] the alleged ‘professional Web site designer’ (how many times have I heard ”’that”’ dubious claim in the last seven years?), the WH email ‘upgrade’ replaced an open architecture response system with a structured system very similar to CRM feedback at a retailer or service company,” the response read in part. “This professional Web designer’s conclusion: Another hatchet job by Yahoo’s ultra-leftist editors, and the Web site is only ‘less user-friendly’ to the computer-incompetent.”

    The Markoff article also listed a number of essentially misplaced critiques by Jakob Nielsen of Nielsen Norman Group, who complained about “a deeply buried privacy policy and a lack of indicators marking one’s progress in traversing each of the multiple Web page steps.” Nielsen also complained about “a poorly designed approach to confirming that a message had actually been sent.”

    Nielsen’s complaints do not square with the actual site. The privacy policy is available in the list of FAQs, one click away from the main Web mail page. Once a user submits a message, a confirmation page immediately loads asking whether the user wants to submit any more messages. A navigation bar is at the top of every single page in the Web mail system.

    Copyright

    Think Tank Warns Against MCA Compromises

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — In 2002, the Bush administration proposed the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to aid in the economic development of third world nations. The program would use a novel approach in its selection of eligible countries and in its criteria for continued assistance. The MCA was designed to focus specifically on accelerating economic growth in countries committed to ruling justly, investing in health and education, and promoting economic freedom.

    However, recent compromises during the legislative process have seriously diluted the program by adding provisions that were not part of the original plan. Some of the new additions include promoting gender equality, saving the environment, developing trade unions, and supporting minority- and women-owned business in the United States.

    An executive memorandum authored by Paolo Pasicolan of the Heritage Foundation warns that such actions would change the president’s original version into “something that dangerously resembles traditional foreign aid.”

    According to Pasicolan, the United States is already the largest bilateral donor to the developing world, contributing $12.9 billion in official development assistance in 2002. However, the money has been spent poorly. Most recipients of U.S. development assistance are poorer now than they were before first receiving U.S. aid.

    By minimizing political considerations and creating an incentive for recipient countries to enact good policies, the Bush Administration hopes to create a situation in which poor countries benefit not only from development assistance programs, but also from the competition to qualify for them.

    Pasicolan states that in order for the MCA to work properly three things must be done.

    First, the plan must focus solely on economic development. Unlike existing aid programs, which often try to simultaneously eradicate poverty, save the environment, and protect U.S. national security, the MCA is intended to focus solely on proven means of promoting economic development. It would provide assistance to countries with, as specified in S. 925, “the demonstrated commitment of the government of the candidate country to just and democratic governance … economic freedom … and investments in the people of such country, including the availability of educational opportunities and health care for all citizens.”

    Secondly, the MCA must be fully independent from traditional development assistance for it to develop innovative programs and serve as a model for reform. Congress should therefore establish a new, independent agency to administer the MCA, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation proposed in the House.

    According to Pasicolan, if the MCA is established under the supervision of an existing government department or agency, the institutional objectives and operational paradigms of the lead department could supersede the MCAs. For example, if the State Department is given too much influence over the MCA, as is the case in the Senate bill which gives the State Department three of the five votes on the MCA’s governing board, the MCA’s country selection process could be affected by unrelated considerations, such as a recipient government’s cooperation in the war on terrorism.

    The third requirement would be a sunset provision. Ultimately, the MCA is an experimental program that would administer a theoretically sound, if untested, method of delivering foreign aid. As such, it should be given enough time to succeed and then be terminated. If it succeeds, it should be used as a model to reform traditional development assistance. A sunset provision, as in H.R. 2441, would place the onus on the MCA to prove its effectiveness rather than burden Congress with the task of terminating an entrenched bureaucracy.

    “As originally proposed, the Millennium Challenge Account offers an opportunity to reform the U.S. aid regime as work requirements changed welfare,” Pasicolan concluded. “However, unless it is allowed to focus solely on economic development and operate independently from existing aid-giving institutions, the MCA will become just another redundant $5 billion bureaucracy.”

    Copyright

    Think Tank Warns Against MCA Compromises

    0

    WASHINGTON (Talon News) — In 2002, the Bush administration proposed the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) to aid in the economic development of third world nations. The program would use a novel approach in its selection of eligible countries and in its criteria for continued assistance. The MCA was designed to focus specifically on accelerating economic growth in countries committed to ruling justly, investing in health and education, and promoting economic freedom.

    However, recent compromises during the legislative process have seriously diluted the program by adding provisions that were not part of the original plan. Some of the new additions include promoting gender equality, saving the environment, developing trade unions, and supporting minority- and women-owned business in the United States.

    An executive memorandum authored by Paolo Pasicolan of the Heritage Foundation warns that such actions would change the president’s original version into “something that dangerously resembles traditional foreign aid.”

    According to Pasicolan, the United States is already the largest bilateral donor to the developing world, contributing $12.9 billion in official development assistance in 2002. However, the money has been spent poorly. Most recipients of U.S. development assistance are poorer now than they were before first receiving U.S. aid.

    By minimizing political considerations and creating an incentive for recipient countries to enact good policies, the Bush Administration hopes to create a situation in which poor countries benefit not only from development assistance programs, but also from the competition to qualify for them.

    Pasicolan states that in order for the MCA to work properly three things must be done.

    First, the plan must focus solely on economic development. Unlike existing aid programs, which often try to simultaneously eradicate poverty, save the environment, and protect U.S. national security, the MCA is intended to focus solely on proven means of promoting economic development. It would provide assistance to countries with, as specified in S. 925, “the demonstrated commitment of the government of the candidate country to just and democratic governance … economic freedom … and investments in the people of such country, including the availability of educational opportunities and health care for all citizens.”

    Secondly, the MCA must be fully independent from traditional development assistance for it to develop innovative programs and serve as a model for reform. Congress should therefore establish a new, independent agency to administer the MCA, such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation proposed in the House.

    According to Pasicolan, if the MCA is established under the supervision of an existing government department or agency, the institutional objectives and operational paradigms of the lead department could supersede the MCAs. For example, if the State Department is given too much influence over the MCA, as is the case in the Senate bill which gives the State Department three of the five votes on the MCA’s governing board, the MCA’s country selection process could be affected by unrelated considerations, such as a recipient government’s cooperation in the war on terrorism.

    The third requirement would be a sunset provision. Ultimately, the MCA is an experimental program that would administer a theoretically sound, if untested, method of delivering foreign aid. As such, it should be given enough time to succeed and then be terminated. If it succeeds, it should be used as a model to reform traditional development assistance. A sunset provision, as in H.R. 2441, would place the onus on the MCA to prove its effectiveness rather than burden Congress with the task of terminating an entrenched bureaucracy.

    “As originally proposed, the Millennium Challenge Account offers an opportunity to reform the U.S. aid regime as work requirements changed welfare,” Pasicolan concluded. “However, unless it is allowed to focus solely on economic development and operate independently from existing aid-giving institutions, the MCA will become just another redundant $5 billion bureaucracy.”

    Copyright

    UPI Investigates: The Vaccine Conflict

    0

    WASHINGTON, July 20 (UPI) — 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.

    Critics say those ties are an unholy alliance in a war against disease where vaccine side effects have damaged, hurt or killed people, mostly children.

    “The CDC is a disgrace. It is a corrupt organization,” said Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who has sued vaccine makers for what he says were bad vaccines. “The drug companies have them on their payroll.”

    The CDC, based in Atlanta, said it is committed to fighting disease and balancing vaccine side effects.

    “Our goal is to protect the public health from both disease and from serious adverse events,” said Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program.

    The agency sets the U.S. childhood immunization schedule, or the list of shots pediatricians give children. Some states say kids can’t go to public school unless they have had CDC-endorsed vaccines.

    Since the mid-1980s the agency has doubled the number of vaccines children get, up to nearly 40 doses before age 2. The CDC also tracks possible side effects, along with the Food and Drug Administration. This puts the agency in the awkward position of evaluating the safety of its own recommendations.

    An advisory committee of outside experts helps the CDC make vaccine recommendations. UPI found:

    *In two cases in the past four years, vaccines endorsed by the CDC were pulled off the market after a number of infants and adults appear to have suffered devastating side effects, and some died. Critics now worry about a possible link between vaccines and autism, diabetes, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome, among other ailments.

    *Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.

    *The CDC is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, the CDC currently has 28 licensing agreements with companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products. It has eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.

    The situation, while legal, gives critics plenty of reason to worry that vaccine side effects are worse than CDC officials say.

    “When you take a look at the ever-increasing numbers of doses of vaccines babies have gotten over the past two decades and you see this corresponding rise in chronic disease and disability in our children, it is out of control,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, which does not accept money from vaccine manufacturers.

    She worries that vaccines might be linked to ballooning rates of chronic illness like autism, which has increased tenfold since the mid-1980s, and asthma, which has more than doubled since 1980.

    Fisher’s group wants to overhaul the mass vaccination system.

    “The CDC has a very hard time investigating in an unbiased way what is happening to our children because of ideological and financial conflicts of interest,” she said. Fisher believes a vaccine injured her son in the 1980s.

    Developing a vaccine can cost a half a billion dollars. A recommendation by the CDC guarantees a market and a 1986 law limits manufacturers’ liability for side effects.

    The annual global market for vaccines is expected to go from $6 billion today to $10 billion by 2006.

    The CDC said the best vaccine advisers often have ties to the industry, making potential conflicts unavoidable. Agency officials review possible conflicts.

    “The issue of safety is critical and you need people extremely knowledgeable about safety to develop the best policy formulations,” said Orenstein. The agency has to weigh possible side effects against dangerous disease. “We need to put safety data in context with risk-of-disease data,” he said.

    The agency said ethics officials also review partnerships with companies to make new vaccines.

    “Each one of those proposed activities is reviewed by the CDC’s ethics officials, by our office of general counsel, and by me to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest,” said Dixie Snider, CDC associate director for science.

    Andrew Watkins, director of the CDC’s Technology Transfer Office, negotiates licensing agreements with outside companies. He said agency scientists routinely leave to work with vaccine manufacturers.

    “It does happen that some of our inventors end up working for a manufacturer,” Watkins said. “In fact, we consider that a wonderful tool of technology transfer, although we do lose a good scientist.”

    But Watkins said very little money actually changes hands, making it unlikely to influence the CDC. He said companies, including vaccine makers, only gave the CDC around $1 million last year to work on collaborative projects and the agency only got $150,000 last year in licensing fees.

    “We are a real cheap date,” Watkins said.

    Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., who has been investigating vaccines for four years, said conflicts at the CDC are a problem, particularly on the vaccine advisory panel. He believes vaccines triggered his grandson’s autism.

    “This presents a real paradox when the CDC routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines, as well as policy matters,” Burton told UPI. “All the while these same scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.”

    Because of concern over vaccine side effects, Congress in 1986 passed a law setting up a database at the CDC to track reports from doctors, manufacturers and the public of possible side effects from vaccines that started in 1991.

    As of the end of last year, the system contained 244,424 total reports of possible reactions to vaccines, including 99,145 emergency room visits, 5,149 life-threatening reactions, 27,925 hospitalizations, 5,775 disabilities, and 5,309 deaths, according to data compiled by Dr. Mark Geier, a vaccine researcher in Silver Spring, Md. The data represents roughly 1 billion doses of vaccines, according to Geier.

    The reports do not necessarily show that a vaccine caused a problem.

    The pain of Rotashield

    The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP, helps the agency decide what vaccines are safe enough to recommend. It is made up of 12 experts from hospitals, universities and state health departments.

    In June 1998, the committee recommended that all infants be vaccinated against rotavirus. The virus causes bad diarrhea that can be fatal.

    At the time, vaccine maker Wyeth had a vaccine called Rotashield. Merck hoped to soon follow with its own version.

    Wyeth ended up pulling its vaccine off the U.S. market in October 1999 after it was suspected of causing an excruciating contortion where a child’s large intestine folds over the small one.

    Emergency surgery is sometimes required to prevent death. That was the case with 8-month-old Chaise Irons.

    “Chaise was vomiting blood and blood was coming out of his stool,” said his mother, Jayne Irons, from her home in Malibu, Calif. Doctors performed emergency surgery to repair Chaise’s intestines, saving his life.

    Jayne said she never questioned her doctor’s advice to give Chaise the vaccine. “I had no reason to doubt anybody. I am such a believer in vaccinations,” Irons said.

    The Irons’ will get $25,000 for Chaise’s injuries from a government compensation program.

    For Rotashield, the CDC’s public database contains 664 total reports possibly caused by the vaccine, including 288 emergency room visits, 63 life-threatening reactions, 232 hospitalizations, 10 disabilities and eight deaths.

    “Eight deaths,” said Jayne Irons. “You just have to thank God that you are not one of the deaths.”

    Republican staff on the House Government Reform Committee looked into the CDC panel that recommended the vaccination. Their August 2001 report found that “four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”

    A transcript from that June 1998 meeting shows the committee voted down an effort by one member to phase in the vaccine because of concern over possible bad side effects. “I’m still a little concerned about the safety issues,” Marie Griffin from Vanderbilt University said before that vote.

    When asked, members of the committee told UPI their potential conflicts do not affect their judgment.

    “I am probably just the kind of person you are talking about,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was a committee member until last month. At the same time, he shared a patent for another rotavirus vaccine. Merck has funded Offit’s research for 13 years.

    “I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that,” Offit said. “When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not.”

    “Is there an unholy alliance between the people who make recommendations about vaccines and the vaccine manufacturers? The answer is no.”

    Merck bought and delivers copies of Offit’s book, “What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines,” to American doctors. The book has a list price of $14.95.

    “Merck Vaccine Division is pleased to present you with a copy of the recent publication, ‘What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines,'” says a Dear Doctor letter from Merck. “The authors designed the book to answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public media.”

    Offit said he does not know how many copies of his book Merck purchased. “I don’t have any control over that,” he said.

    The 2001 Government Reform Committee’s investigation noted potential conflicts with another committee member. The chairman of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee, Dartmouth Medical School Professor Dr. John Modlin, owned $26,000 in Merck stock.

    In a telephone interview with UPI, Modlin said he had sold that stock, but that he had recently agreed to chair a committee to oversee Merck vaccine clinical trials. Modlin, who was the committee chairman until last month, said he does not know how much compensation he receives from that post, but that Merck “pays my expenses” to attend meetings.

    In October 1999, the committee reversed its recommendation that all infants should get rotavirus vaccinations. Modlin said the vaccine was safe enough, but the committee reversed itself out of concern that bad press over Rotashield might make some people stop getting vaccinated altogether.

    “There could be some spill-over effects that would have a net negative effect,” Modlin said. “I thought that was the committee’s finest hour.”

    Meeting transcripts over the past decade showed that at some meetings, half of the members present had potential conflicts with vaccine manufacturers.

    The CDC said that in October 2002 it adopted new guidelines for participating on that advisory committee that in the future will preclude people with conflicts like Offit’s from sitting on the committee.

    “We learned from that experience (with rotavirus) and have now put in force more stringent criteria recently so we do not nominate people with those kinds of conflicts,” said the CDC’s Snider.

    At the June 2002 committee meeting — the last meeting for which minutes are available — four of the 11 members present acknowledged conflicts with Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer and Aventis Pasteur. Two of the four did research or vaccine trials for manufacturers. One of the four was a co-holder of a vaccine patent as well as a consultant to Merck.

    At odds over autism

    At 8:05 a.m. on Monday, July 16, 2001, a vaccine safety committee of the influential Institute of Medicine convened a public meeting at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Mass.

    The purpose: to discuss whether CDC-recommended vaccines might be responsible for a wave of autism and neurological problems in tens of thousands of American children during the 1990s.

    The concern: most vaccines contained a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal. Too much mercury has known toxic effects on the brain.

    Since the mid 1980s, the number of childhood vaccinations recommended by the CDC had nearly doubled. The agency recommends nearly 40 doses of vaccines for children today. Also since the mid-1980s the autism rate in the United States had soared by 10 times to an astonishing one child in every 300.

    Cause and effect or coincidence?

    The vaccine manufacturers deny any connection, but the Institute of Medicine — part of the National Academy of Sciences and a key adviser to the federal government on medical concerns — wanted to hear from Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, a CDC expert on the issue.

    When Verstraeten appeared before the committee, he made a surprise opening statement.

    “First, I should mention that as of 8 a.m. European time I have been employed by a vaccine manufacturer,” Verstraeten told the panel, according to a transcript. “That means since 2 a.m. American time,” just hours before he spoke on behalf of the CDC.

    Verstraeten had been working at the CDC on a study of 76,659 children to determine if thimerosal might be causing neurological problems like autism.

    Signs of autism usually show up around age 2. Sometimes children who had previously appeared to interact normally will suddenly regress, become withdrawn and stop responding to their parents and the outside world. They may perform repetitive motions, like spinning or flapping their arms, have seizures, scream uncontrollably and resist physical touch.

    Manufacturers had used thimerosal, which contains ethyl-mercury, as a preservative in multi-dose vials of vaccine. The vials allow needles to be inserted repeatedly and the vaccine drawn out. The vials are cheaper than packaging doses of vaccine separately, without thimerosal.

    Depending on what vaccines a child got during that period, a visit to the doctor during the 1990’s may have exposed some children to 125 times the limit on mercury set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    A February 2000 draft of Verstraeten’s study, obtained by United Press International, appears to show that thimerosal might cause brain problems.

    That draft cites “increasing risks of neurological developmental disorders with increasing cumulative exposure to thimerosal.”

    “We can state that this analysis does not rule out that receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccine in children under 3 months of age may be related to an increased risk of neurologic developmental disorders,” the study said.

    To discuss the findings in Verstraeten’s study, the CDC convened a meeting at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Ga., on June 7-8, 2000. The agency invited vaccine experts and representatives of four vaccine manufacturers.

    After discussing that study, Dr. David Johnson, a Michigan state public health officer advising the CDC on vaccines, said that the findings were troubling, according to a transcript.

    “My gut feeling? It worries me enough,” said Johnson. “I do not want (my) grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”

    Later in the same conversation, CDC officials agreed to keep the study private.

    “We have been privileged so far that given the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage to keep it out of, let’s say, less responsible hands,” said Bob Chen, head of CDC’s Vaccine Safety and Development unit.

    Dr. Roger Bernier, who was then CDC’s associate director for science, responded, “I think if we will all just consider this embargoed information, if I can use that term.”

    The CDC’s Walter Orenstein said the agency wanted to look hard at the study before discussing it in public, not cover it up. The CDC never published a study based on the data, but said it would soon.

    GlaxoSmithKline declined UPI’s request to interview Verstraeten from Rixensart, Belgium, but Orenstein said Verstraeten left the CDC to move back to Europe.

    For Lara Bono of Durham, N.C., the connection between vaccines with thimerosal and her son’s autism is obvious.

    Bono said her son Jackson began to change drastically within days of receiving a group of thimerosal-containing vaccinations.

    Bono says that on Aug. 14, 1990, four days after receiving the last of a group of shots, 16-month-old Jackson was becoming withdrawn. Within two weeks he stopped responding or acknowledging his parents. Two weeks after that Jackson no longer would make eye contact. It soon became difficult to get Jackson to eat or sleep. He has had bouts of spinning uncontrollably and seizures.

    “Fast forward another couple of months and he was gone. The mercury was in his brain,” Bono said.

    Years later, Bono discovered that at one point, Jackson’s mercury exposure may have been more than 40 times the limit set by the EPA. Nine years later, Bono says, Jackson was diagnosed with mercury poisoning she says came from the vaccines.

    Boyd Haley, chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Kentucky, has done studies that he says show some children with autism do not excrete harmful mercury from vaccines, but keep it in their bodies. He says the CDC knows the vaccines the agency recommended may have harmed a generation of children.

    “I know that they know and that is what bothers me more than anything else,” Haley said. “You can’t do a study showing it (thimerosal) is safe. It is just too damn toxic.”

    In June of 2000, the agency’s Vaccine Advisory Committee signed on to a statement calling for the removal of thimerosal from vaccines “because any potential risk from mercury is of concern.”

    “However, there remains no convincing evidence of harm caused by low levels of thimerosal in vaccines,” the statement said.

    In October 2001, the Institute of Medicine panel that heard from Verstraeten found that it is “biologically plausible” that thimerosal causes autism, but that, “current scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves a link.”

    To avoid any conflict of interest, that panel specifically excludes “anyone who had participated in research on vaccine safety, received funding from vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies, or served on Vaccine Advisory Committees.”

    Laid low by Lyme vaccine

    The rotavirus recommendation is not the only controversial call made by the CDC. Another involves a vaccine to fight Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness that can cause profound fatigue, headache, fever and severe muscle pain.

    “It was after the booster shot that I absolutely collapsed,” said Lewis Bull, a farmer from East Lyme, Conn. Bull, now 49, volunteered in 1996 to take shots during a clinical study for a new vaccine to prevent Lyme disease developed by SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline. Clinical studies are tests on humans to make sure vaccines are safe and work before going on the market.

    In the study, Bull first received placebo shots containing no vaccine and felt fine.

    But soon after his second shot of the real vaccine he began to suffer from debilitating arthritis, memory loss and fatigue. Some doctors believe the Lyme vaccine side effects mirror the disease itself.

    “For the first six months I could not get out of bed. The memory loss was incredible. I’ve played guitar all my life and I could not remember how to play guitar. I could not find the town hall and I used to go there four times a week,” he said in a recent telephone interview.

    Bull said his fatigue was so severe he would sleep for stretches of 22 hours or more. Without medical insurance, Bull was forced to sell his farm.

    On Feb. 18, 1999, the CDC endorsed Lyme disease vaccine for people age 15-70 who work or recreate in possible tick-infested areas.

    By October of 2000, more than 1.4 million people had received the vaccine, according to the CDC.

    But 19 months later, in February 2002, SmithKline Beecham pulled the vaccine off the market because “sales of LYMERIX are insufficient to justify the continued investment.”

    The company also faced hundreds lawsuits by people who said they suffered side effects, many similar to Lewis Bull’s.

    Although he never sued, Bull said he complained to the CDC to report what he says were obvious side effects from the vaccine, called LYMERIX.

    The government’s database of possible side effects for LYMERIX lists 640 emergency room visits, 34 life-threatening reactions, 77 hospitalizations, 198 disabilities and six deaths after people took the shots since the CDC endorsed it.

    According to CDC meeting transcripts where the advisory committee weighed its recommendation, five of 10 committee members disclosed their financial conflicts of interest with vaccine manufactures. Three of the five had conflicts of interest with SmithKlineBeecham.

    The committee ignored a plea from a consumer advocate to delay a recommendation on LYMERIX because it might not be safe, according to a February 1999 transcript.

    “We are just saying there is a wealth of information out there that is different than the information you have been provided. I think the honorable thing to do would be to wait,” said Karen Vanderhoof-Forschner, founder of the Lyme Disease Foundation, a patient’s advocacy group that eventually opposed the vaccine.

    UPI found that the CDC and SmithKline Beecham worked together on a Lyme vaccine. A 1992 CDC activity report obtained by UPI says the agency had an agreement “with SmithKline Beecham that currently funds three positions at (the CDC) for the purpose of providing information of use in developing advanced test methods and vaccine candidates.”

    In June 2001, the General Accounting Office delivered a report to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., on this issue. It says that CDC employees “are listed on two Lyme-disease related patents” including “a 1993 joint patent between CDC and SmithKline Beecham Corporation.” The report also said that six of 12 consultants working for the CDC on Lyme vaccines “reported at least one interest related to a vaccine firm.”

    Do babies need Hep B?

    In 1991 the CDC recommended that all infants get their first Hepatitis B vaccination just hours after birth. The disease is mostly spread from dirty needles and unprotected sex. It can create deadly liver disease.

    The vaccine has been blamed for mysterious deaths following the shots, sometimes filed as sudden infant death syndrome.

    One is the Sept. 16, 1998, death of Lyla Rose Belkin at age 5 weeks. She died 15 hours after getting her second Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot.

    Michael Belkin said in a telephone interview from Seattle that his daughter was lively and alert prior to receiving the shot. She became agitated and noisy, suddenly fell asleep, and died 15 hours later. Belkin said the coroner indicated that his daughter’s brain was swollen; a reaction some researchers believe could be caused by the vaccine.

    “So in the CDC and (the Vaccine Advisory Committee’s) own words, almost every newborn U.S. baby is now greeted on its entry into the world by a vaccine injection against a sexually transmitted disease for which the baby is not at risk — because they couldn’t get the junkies, prostitutes, homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the vaccine,” Belkin told a congressional panel on May 18, 1999.

    “Parents need to understand that the system providing the vaccines injected into their children’s veins is corrupt and scientifically flawed,” Belkin told UPI. “Parents should do their own homework and investigate this question: What is the risk of getting a severe neurological vaccine adverse reaction versus the risk of getting neurological complications from the disease?”

    The CDC’s files contain 32,731 total reports of possible reactions following Hepatitis B vaccinations since 1991, including 10,915 emergency room visits, 685 life-threatening reactions, 3,700 hospitalizations, 1,200 disabilities and 618 deaths.

    In October 2002, the Institute of Medicine reported that the “evidence is inadequate” to prove or disprove that some vaccines might be behind some cases of SIDS, and called for more research.

    The CDC says, “There is no confirmed evidence which indicates that hepatitis B vaccine can cause chronic illnesses.”

    Some of the officials involved in the agency’s 1991 decision to recommend that all infants receive the Hepatitis B vaccine also had close ties to vaccine manufacturers.

    Dr. Sam Katz was the advisory committee chairman at the time. A professor at Duke, Katz said 30 percent of children who get the disease get it from unknown causes, possibly in daycare.

    He said the CDC tried to give the shots to teens, but it was hard to get them to show up for all three doses.

    “So they said, ‘Well, we’ve got a captive audience and we want to give it to the newborns anyways.'”

    Katz developed a measles vaccine now manufactured by Merck, which also manufactures a Hepatitis B vaccine. Katz said when he was chairman of the committee in 1991 he also worked as a paid consultant for Merck, Wyeth and most major vaccine manufacturers.

    He said conflicts do not pose a real problem.

    “I think it has increasingly become a problem, but it is a perceived problem, not a real problem,” Katz said.

    Another member of the committee in 1991 was Dr. Neal Halsey, director of the division of disease control at Johns Hopkins University. He continued to advise the committee throughout the rest of that decade, as did Katz.

    Halsey is a former CDC employee who has done research paid for by most of the major vaccine manufacturers. When he testified before the House Government Reform Committee in 1999, he disclosed a salary at that time for work on a Lyme vaccine.

    He also established the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety, started in part with “unrestricted educational grants in 1997 from several vaccine manufacturers and some private donations,” according to Halsey. Congressional investigators said that support included $50,000 in start-up funds from Merck and a payment from Wyeth. Halsey said vaccine manufacturers do not fund the center’s vaccine education activities.

    Halsey said the CDC needs experts like him to get the best advice.

    “In order to get the people with experience, you need people who have done the research,” Halsey said in a telephone interview. “To do that, you have to have people who have done research for vaccine manufacturers.”

    Halsey said, however, that the CDC should not recommend vaccines and evaluate safety at the same time.

    “I think it is a problem and I think it would be better if an independent body evaluated safety,” Halsey said.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    UPI Investigates: The Vaccine Conflict

    0

    WASHINGTON, July 20 (UPI) — 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.

    Critics say those ties are an unholy alliance in a war against disease where vaccine side effects have damaged, hurt or killed people, mostly children.

    “The CDC is a disgrace. It is a corrupt organization,” said Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who has sued vaccine makers for what he says were bad vaccines. “The drug companies have them on their payroll.”

    The CDC, based in Atlanta, said it is committed to fighting disease and balancing vaccine side effects.

    “Our goal is to protect the public health from both disease and from serious adverse events,” said Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program.

    The agency sets the U.S. childhood immunization schedule, or the list of shots pediatricians give children. Some states say kids can’t go to public school unless they have had CDC-endorsed vaccines.

    Since the mid-1980s the agency has doubled the number of vaccines children get, up to nearly 40 doses before age 2. The CDC also tracks possible side effects, along with the Food and Drug Administration. This puts the agency in the awkward position of evaluating the safety of its own recommendations.

    An advisory committee of outside experts helps the CDC make vaccine recommendations. UPI found:

    *In two cases in the past four years, vaccines endorsed by the CDC were pulled off the market after a number of infants and adults appear to have suffered devastating side effects, and some died. Critics now worry about a possible link between vaccines and autism, diabetes, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome, among other ailments.

    *Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.

    *The CDC is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, the CDC currently has 28 licensing agreements with companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products. It has eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.

    The situation, while legal, gives critics plenty of reason to worry that vaccine side effects are worse than CDC officials say.

    “When you take a look at the ever-increasing numbers of doses of vaccines babies have gotten over the past two decades and you see this corresponding rise in chronic disease and disability in our children, it is out of control,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, which does not accept money from vaccine manufacturers.

    She worries that vaccines might be linked to ballooning rates of chronic illness like autism, which has increased tenfold since the mid-1980s, and asthma, which has more than doubled since 1980.

    Fisher’s group wants to overhaul the mass vaccination system.

    “The CDC has a very hard time investigating in an unbiased way what is happening to our children because of ideological and financial conflicts of interest,” she said. Fisher believes a vaccine injured her son in the 1980s.

    Developing a vaccine can cost a half a billion dollars. A recommendation by the CDC guarantees a market and a 1986 law limits manufacturers’ liability for side effects.

    The annual global market for vaccines is expected to go from $6 billion today to $10 billion by 2006.

    The CDC said the best vaccine advisers often have ties to the industry, making potential conflicts unavoidable. Agency officials review possible conflicts.

    “The issue of safety is critical and you need people extremely knowledgeable about safety to develop the best policy formulations,” said Orenstein. The agency has to weigh possible side effects against dangerous disease. “We need to put safety data in context with risk-of-disease data,” he said.

    The agency said ethics officials also review partnerships with companies to make new vaccines.

    “Each one of those proposed activities is reviewed by the CDC’s ethics officials, by our office of general counsel, and by me to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest,” said Dixie Snider, CDC associate director for science.

    Andrew Watkins, director of the CDC’s Technology Transfer Office, negotiates licensing agreements with outside companies. He said agency scientists routinely leave to work with vaccine manufacturers.

    “It does happen that some of our inventors end up working for a manufacturer,” Watkins said. “In fact, we consider that a wonderful tool of technology transfer, although we do lose a good scientist.”

    But Watkins said very little money actually changes hands, making it unlikely to influence the CDC. He said companies, including vaccine makers, only gave the CDC around $1 million last year to work on collaborative projects and the agency only got $150,000 last year in licensing fees.

    “We are a real cheap date,” Watkins said.

    Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., who has been investigating vaccines for four years, said conflicts at the CDC are a problem, particularly on the vaccine advisory panel. He believes vaccines triggered his grandson’s autism.

    “This presents a real paradox when the CDC routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines, as well as policy matters,” Burton told UPI. “All the while these same scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.”

    Because of concern over vaccine side effects, Congress in 1986 passed a law setting up a database at the CDC to track reports from doctors, manufacturers and the public of possible side effects from vaccines that started in 1991.

    As of the end of last year, the system contained 244,424 total reports of possible reactions to vaccines, including 99,145 emergency room visits, 5,149 life-threatening reactions, 27,925 hospitalizations, 5,775 disabilities, and 5,309 deaths, according to data compiled by Dr. Mark Geier, a vaccine researcher in Silver Spring, Md. The data represents roughly 1 billion doses of vaccines, according to Geier.

    The reports do not necessarily show that a vaccine caused a problem.

    The pain of Rotashield

    The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP, helps the agency decide what vaccines are safe enough to recommend. It is made up of 12 experts from hospitals, universities and state health departments.

    In June 1998, the committee recommended that all infants be vaccinated against rotavirus. The virus causes bad diarrhea that can be fatal.

    At the time, vaccine maker Wyeth had a vaccine called Rotashield. Merck hoped to soon follow with its own version.

    Wyeth ended up pulling its vaccine off the U.S. market in October 1999 after it was suspected of causing an excruciating contortion where a child’s large intestine folds over the small one.

    Emergency surgery is sometimes required to prevent death. That was the case with 8-month-old Chaise Irons.

    “Chaise was vomiting blood and blood was coming out of his stool,” said his mother, Jayne Irons, from her home in Malibu, Calif. Doctors performed emergency surgery to repair Chaise’s intestines, saving his life.

    Jayne said she never questioned her doctor’s advice to give Chaise the vaccine. “I had no reason to doubt anybody. I am such a believer in vaccinations,” Irons said.

    The Irons’ will get $25,000 for Chaise’s injuries from a government compensation program.

    For Rotashield, the CDC’s public database contains 664 total reports possibly caused by the vaccine, including 288 emergency room visits, 63 life-threatening reactions, 232 hospitalizations, 10 disabilities and eight deaths.

    “Eight deaths,” said Jayne Irons. “You just have to thank God that you are not one of the deaths.”

    Republican staff on the House Government Reform Committee looked into the CDC panel that recommended the vaccination. Their August 2001 report found that “four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”

    A transcript from that June 1998 meeting shows the committee voted down an effort by one member to phase in the vaccine because of concern over possible bad side effects. “I’m still a little concerned about the safety issues,” Marie Griffin from Vanderbilt University said before that vote.

    When asked, members of the committee told UPI their potential conflicts do not affect their judgment.

    “I am probably just the kind of person you are talking about,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was a committee member until last month. At the same time, he shared a patent for another rotavirus vaccine. Merck has funded Offit’s research for 13 years.

    “I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that,” Offit said. “When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not.”

    “Is there an unholy alliance between the people who make recommendations about vaccines and the vaccine manufacturers? The answer is no.”

    Merck bought and delivers copies of Offit’s book, “What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines,” to American doctors. The book has a list price of $14.95.

    “Merck Vaccine Division is pleased to present you with a copy of the recent publication, ‘What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines,'” says a Dear Doctor letter from Merck. “The authors designed the book to answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public media.”

    Offit said he does not know how many copies of his book Merck purchased. “I don’t have any control over that,” he said.

    The 2001 Government Reform Committee’s investigation noted potential conflicts with another committee member. The chairman of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee, Dartmouth Medical School Professor Dr. John Modlin, owned $26,000 in Merck stock.

    In a telephone interview with UPI, Modlin said he had sold that stock, but that he had recently agreed to chair a committee to oversee Merck vaccine clinical trials. Modlin, who was the committee chairman until last month, said he does not know how much compensation he receives from that post, but that Merck “pays my expenses” to attend meetings.

    In October 1999, the committee reversed its recommendation that all infants should get rotavirus vaccinations. Modlin said the vaccine was safe enough, but the committee reversed itself out of concern that bad press over Rotashield might make some people stop getting vaccinated altogether.

    “There could be some spill-over effects that would have a net negative effect,” Modlin said. “I thought that was the committee’s finest hour.”

    Meeting transcripts over the past decade showed that at some meetings, half of the members present had potential conflicts with vaccine manufacturers.

    The CDC said that in October 2002 it adopted new guidelines for participating on that advisory committee that in the future will preclude people with conflicts like Offit’s from sitting on the committee.

    “We learned from that experience (with rotavirus) and have now put in force more stringent criteria recently so we do not nominate people with those kinds of conflicts,” said the CDC’s Snider.

    At the June 2002 committee meeting — the last meeting for which minutes are available — four of the 11 members present acknowledged conflicts with Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Bayer and Aventis Pasteur. Two of the four did research or vaccine trials for manufacturers. One of the four was a co-holder of a vaccine patent as well as a consultant to Merck.

    At odds over autism

    At 8:05 a.m. on Monday, July 16, 2001, a vaccine safety committee of the influential Institute of Medicine convened a public meeting at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Mass.

    The purpose: to discuss whether CDC-recommended vaccines might be responsible for a wave of autism and neurological problems in tens of thousands of American children during the 1990s.

    The concern: most vaccines contained a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal. Too much mercury has known toxic effects on the brain.

    Since the mid 1980s, the number of childhood vaccinations recommended by the CDC had nearly doubled. The agency recommends nearly 40 doses of vaccines for children today. Also since the mid-1980s the autism rate in the United States had soared by 10 times to an astonishing one child in every 300.

    Cause and effect or coincidence?

    The vaccine manufacturers deny any connection, but the Institute of Medicine — part of the National Academy of Sciences and a key adviser to the federal government on medical concerns — wanted to hear from Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, a CDC expert on the issue.

    When Verstraeten appeared before the committee, he made a surprise opening statement.

    “First, I should mention that as of 8 a.m. European time I have been employed by a vaccine manufacturer,” Verstraeten told the panel, according to a transcript. “That means since 2 a.m. American time,” just hours before he spoke on behalf of the CDC.

    Verstraeten had been working at the CDC on a study of 76,659 children to determine if thimerosal might be causing neurological problems like autism.

    Signs of autism usually show up around age 2. Sometimes children who had previously appeared to interact normally will suddenly regress, become withdrawn and stop responding to their parents and the outside world. They may perform repetitive motions, like spinning or flapping their arms, have seizures, scream uncontrollably and resist physical touch.

    Manufacturers had used thimerosal, which contains ethyl-mercury, as a preservative in multi-dose vials of vaccine. The vials allow needles to be inserted repeatedly and the vaccine drawn out. The vials are cheaper than packaging doses of vaccine separately, without thimerosal.

    Depending on what vaccines a child got during that period, a visit to the doctor during the 1990’s may have exposed some children to 125 times the limit on mercury set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    A February 2000 draft of Verstraeten’s study, obtained by United Press International, appears to show that thimerosal might cause brain problems.

    That draft cites “increasing risks of neurological developmental disorders with increasing cumulative exposure to thimerosal.”

    “We can state that this analysis does not rule out that receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccine in children under 3 months of age may be related to an increased risk of neurologic developmental disorders,” the study said.

    To discuss the findings in Verstraeten’s study, the CDC convened a meeting at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center in Norcross, Ga., on June 7-8, 2000. The agency invited vaccine experts and representatives of four vaccine manufacturers.

    After discussing that study, Dr. David Johnson, a Michigan state public health officer advising the CDC on vaccines, said that the findings were troubling, according to a transcript.

    “My gut feeling? It worries me enough,” said Johnson. “I do not want (my) grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”

    Later in the same conversation, CDC officials agreed to keep the study private.

    “We have been privileged so far that given the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage to keep it out of, let’s say, less responsible hands,” said Bob Chen, head of CDC’s Vaccine Safety and Development unit.

    Dr. Roger Bernier, who was then CDC’s associate director for science, responded, “I think if we will all just consider this embargoed information, if I can use that term.”

    The CDC’s Walter Orenstein said the agency wanted to look hard at the study before discussing it in public, not cover it up. The CDC never published a study based on the data, but said it would soon.

    GlaxoSmithKline declined UPI’s request to interview Verstraeten from Rixensart, Belgium, but Orenstein said Verstraeten left the CDC to move back to Europe.

    For Lara Bono of Durham, N.C., the connection between vaccines with thimerosal and her son’s autism is obvious.

    Bono said her son Jackson began to change drastically within days of receiving a group of thimerosal-containing vaccinations.

    Bono says that on Aug. 14, 1990, four days after receiving the last of a group of shots, 16-month-old Jackson was becoming withdrawn. Within two weeks he stopped responding or acknowledging his parents. Two weeks after that Jackson no longer would make eye contact. It soon became difficult to get Jackson to eat or sleep. He has had bouts of spinning uncontrollably and seizures.

    “Fast forward another couple of months and he was gone. The mercury was in his brain,” Bono said.

    Years later, Bono discovered that at one point, Jackson’s mercury exposure may have been more than 40 times the limit set by the EPA. Nine years later, Bono says, Jackson was diagnosed with mercury poisoning she says came from the vaccines.

    Boyd Haley, chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Kentucky, has done studies that he says show some children with autism do not excrete harmful mercury from vaccines, but keep it in their bodies. He says the CDC knows the vaccines the agency recommended may have harmed a generation of children.

    “I know that they know and that is what bothers me more than anything else,” Haley said. “You can’t do a study showing it (thimerosal) is safe. It is just too damn toxic.”

    In June of 2000, the agency’s Vaccine Advisory Committee signed on to a statement calling for the removal of thimerosal from vaccines “because any potential risk from mercury is of concern.”

    “However, there remains no convincing evidence of harm caused by low levels of thimerosal in vaccines,” the statement said.

    In October 2001, the Institute of Medicine panel that heard from Verstraeten found that it is “biologically plausible” that thimerosal causes autism, but that, “current scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves a link.”

    To avoid any conflict of interest, that panel specifically excludes “anyone who had participated in research on vaccine safety, received funding from vaccine manufacturers or their parent companies, or served on Vaccine Advisory Committees.”

    Laid low by Lyme vaccine

    The rotavirus recommendation is not the only controversial call made by the CDC. Another involves a vaccine to fight Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness that can cause profound fatigue, headache, fever and severe muscle pain.

    “It was after the booster shot that I absolutely collapsed,” said Lewis Bull, a farmer from East Lyme, Conn. Bull, now 49, volunteered in 1996 to take shots during a clinical study for a new vaccine to prevent Lyme disease developed by SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline. Clinical studies are tests on humans to make sure vaccines are safe and work before going on the market.

    In the study, Bull first received placebo shots containing no vaccine and felt fine.

    But soon after his second shot of the real vaccine he began to suffer from debilitating arthritis, memory loss and fatigue. Some doctors believe the Lyme vaccine side effects mirror the disease itself.

    “For the first six months I could not get out of bed. The memory loss was incredible. I’ve played guitar all my life and I could not remember how to play guitar. I could not find the town hall and I used to go there four times a week,” he said in a recent telephone interview.

    Bull said his fatigue was so severe he would sleep for stretches of 22 hours or more. Without medical insurance, Bull was forced to sell his farm.

    On Feb. 18, 1999, the CDC endorsed Lyme disease vaccine for people age 15-70 who work or recreate in possible tick-infested areas.

    By October of 2000, more than 1.4 million people had received the vaccine, according to the CDC.

    But 19 months later, in February 2002, SmithKline Beecham pulled the vaccine off the market because “sales of LYMERIX are insufficient to justify the continued investment.”

    The company also faced hundreds lawsuits by people who said they suffered side effects, many similar to Lewis Bull’s.

    Although he never sued, Bull said he complained to the CDC to report what he says were obvious side effects from the vaccine, called LYMERIX.

    The government’s database of possible side effects for LYMERIX lists 640 emergency room visits, 34 life-threatening reactions, 77 hospitalizations, 198 disabilities and six deaths after people took the shots since the CDC endorsed it.

    According to CDC meeting transcripts where the advisory committee weighed its recommendation, five of 10 committee members disclosed their financial conflicts of interest with vaccine manufactures. Three of the five had conflicts of interest with SmithKlineBeecham.

    The committee ignored a plea from a consumer advocate to delay a recommendation on LYMERIX because it might not be safe, according to a February 1999 transcript.

    “We are just saying there is a wealth of information out there that is different than the information you have been provided. I think the honorable thing to do would be to wait,” said Karen Vanderhoof-Forschner, founder of the Lyme Disease Foundation, a patient’s advocacy group that eventually opposed the vaccine.

    UPI found that the CDC and SmithKline Beecham worked together on a Lyme vaccine. A 1992 CDC activity report obtained by UPI says the agency had an agreement “with SmithKline Beecham that currently funds three positions at (the CDC) for the purpose of providing information of use in developing advanced test methods and vaccine candidates.”

    In June 2001, the General Accounting Office delivered a report to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., on this issue. It says that CDC employees “are listed on two Lyme-disease related patents” including “a 1993 joint patent between CDC and SmithKline Beecham Corporation.” The report also said that six of 12 consultants working for the CDC on Lyme vaccines “reported at least one interest related to a vaccine firm.”

    Do babies need Hep B?

    In 1991 the CDC recommended that all infants get their first Hepatitis B vaccination just hours after birth. The disease is mostly spread from dirty needles and unprotected sex. It can create deadly liver disease.

    The vaccine has been blamed for mysterious deaths following the shots, sometimes filed as sudden infant death syndrome.

    One is the Sept. 16, 1998, death of Lyla Rose Belkin at age 5 weeks. She died 15 hours after getting her second Hepatitis B vaccine booster shot.

    Michael Belkin said in a telephone interview from Seattle that his daughter was lively and alert prior to receiving the shot. She became agitated and noisy, suddenly fell asleep, and died 15 hours later. Belkin said the coroner indicated that his daughter’s brain was swollen; a reaction some researchers believe could be caused by the vaccine.

    “So in the CDC and (the Vaccine Advisory Committee’s) own words, almost every newborn U.S. baby is now greeted on its entry into the world by a vaccine injection against a sexually transmitted disease for which the baby is not at risk — because they couldn’t get the junkies, prostitutes, homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals to take the vaccine,” Belkin told a congressional panel on May 18, 1999.

    “Parents need to understand that the system providing the vaccines injected into their children’s veins is corrupt and scientifically flawed,” Belkin told UPI. “Parents should do their own homework and investigate this question: What is the risk of getting a severe neurological vaccine adverse reaction versus the risk of getting neurological complications from the disease?”

    The CDC’s files contain 32,731 total reports of possible reactions following Hepatitis B vaccinations since 1991, including 10,915 emergency room visits, 685 life-threatening reactions, 3,700 hospitalizations, 1,200 disabilities and 618 deaths.

    In October 2002, the Institute of Medicine reported that the “evidence is inadequate” to prove or disprove that some vaccines might be behind some cases of SIDS, and called for more research.

    The CDC says, “There is no confirmed evidence which indicates that hepatitis B vaccine can cause chronic illnesses.”

    Some of the officials involved in the agency’s 1991 decision to recommend that all infants receive the Hepatitis B vaccine also had close ties to vaccine manufacturers.

    Dr. Sam Katz was the advisory committee chairman at the time. A professor at Duke, Katz said 30 percent of children who get the disease get it from unknown causes, possibly in daycare.

    He said the CDC tried to give the shots to teens, but it was hard to get them to show up for all three doses.

    “So they said, ‘Well, we’ve got a captive audience and we want to give it to the newborns anyways.'”

    Katz developed a measles vaccine now manufactured by Merck, which also manufactures a Hepatitis B vaccine. Katz said when he was chairman of the committee in 1991 he also worked as a paid consultant for Merck, Wyeth and most major vaccine manufacturers.

    He said conflicts do not pose a real problem.

    “I think it has increasingly become a problem, but it is a perceived problem, not a real problem,” Katz said.

    Another member of the committee in 1991 was Dr. Neal Halsey, director of the division of disease control at Johns Hopkins University. He continued to advise the committee throughout the rest of that decade, as did Katz.

    Halsey is a former CDC employee who has done research paid for by most of the major vaccine manufacturers. When he testified before the House Government Reform Committee in 1999, he disclosed a salary at that time for work on a Lyme vaccine.

    He also established the Johns Hopkins Institute for Vaccine Safety, started in part with “unrestricted educational grants in 1997 from several vaccine manufacturers and some private donations,” according to Halsey. Congressional investigators said that support included $50,000 in start-up funds from Merck and a payment from Wyeth. Halsey said vaccine manufacturers do not fund the center’s vaccine education activities.

    Halsey said the CDC needs experts like him to get the best advice.

    “In order to get the people with experience, you need people who have done the research,” Halsey said in a telephone interview. “To do that, you have to have people who have done research for vaccine manufacturers.”

    Halsey said, however, that the CDC should not recommend vaccines and evaluate safety at the same time.

    “I think it is a problem and I think it would be better if an independent body evaluated safety,” Halsey said.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Grassroot Perspective – July 23, 2003-Precautionary Principle a Risky Gambit; Life, Liberty, and AnN E-mail Address?; Why Piddle Around? Jobs and Economic Development

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Precautionary Principle a Risky Gambit

    By Michael De Alessi

    https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/16/ED264780.DTL

    The recently passed Precautionary Principle ordinance purports to make
    San Francisco a leader by “challenging traditional assumptions about
    risk management.” In truth, it will likely be bad for the city, public
    health and the environment.

    The precautionary principle is routinely described as “better safe than
    sorry.” Risk reduction is a laudable goal, but only when weighed against
    the risks of not taking certain actions. The trick is balancing the two.
    The city needs a policy of risk management and mitigation, not a mandate
    for the elimination of risk, which is simply impossible.

    The ordinance mandates “selection of the alternative that presents the
    least potential threat to human health.” But what if the least riskiest
    option also confers the least benefit? Although it has now been added
    (but only once), the word “benefit” did not appear in the original ordinance. San Franciscans should know better.

    AIDS activists here have had to fight the FDA tooth and nail over drug
    approvals because the FDA believes potential risks outweigh potential
    benefits.

    That is, the FDA practices the precautionary principle.

    Of course, many chemicals pose health risks, and we should do everything
    we can to lessen their impact on our lives and to find alternatives. But
    not at the expense of inferior alternatives that result in greater harm
    to human health or the environment. Activists have targeted genetically
    modified organisms because they carry an uncertain risk. But many of
    those organisms drastically reduce pesticide use, a good thing by the
    activists’ own standards.

    Here’s how Chronicle columnist Ruth Rosen described the Precautionary
    Principle ordinance (“Better safe than sorry,” June 19): “When science
    cannot yet fully establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but can
    provide reasonable evidence of harm, this principle urges us to take
    precautionary measures. In other words, if we wait until we’re
    absolutely certain, we’ve probably waited too long.”

    It sounds just as reasonable to say: “When science cannot yet fully
    establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but can provide reasonable
    evidence of benefit, this principle urges us to act.” In fact, both
    approaches are meaningless unless risk and benefit, including cost, are
    taken into account.

    San Francisco is a dangerous place to cross the street, yet thousands of
    people do it every day. Applying the precautionary principle, however,
    pedestrians would have to be certain that no car loomed around the
    corner. They would never get out the front door.

    Obviously, there are different scales of risks. It is more dangerous to
    cross 19th Avenue at rush hour than a secluded cul-de-sac at lunchtime.
    But if all risk is unacceptable, as it is for proponents of the
    precautionary principle, both would be treated the same way, which is
    irrational.

    Perhaps the most infamous example of risk reduction at all costs
    occurred in Peru in 1991. After a U.S. EPA study found evidence of an
    increase in cancer risk from a chlorine byproduct, officials in Peru
    stopped using chlorine to disinfect drinking water, resulting in a
    widespread cholera outbreak that killed thousands. Innumerable cases
    show that the elimination of “dangerous” risks would result in a lower
    standard of health and well-being.

    By setting an unattainable benchmark, San Francisco’s Precautionary
    Principle ordinance has no way to measure success. To be truly on the
    cutting edge of risk management, the city should institute some
    performance measures that take risk, benefit and cost into account. The
    goal should not be risk reduction alone but a net improvement in human
    health and safety.

    In these days of cash-strapped cities and states, we need the maximum
    benefit possible. That means scientifically rigorous assessments of risk
    that consider whatever means are available to improve health and
    environmental safety.

    ####

    Michael De Alessi is Director of Natural Resource Policy at Reason
    Foundation https://www.rppi.org

    Above article is quoted by the author’s permission. It appeared on July
    17, 2003 in San Francisco Chronicle.

    – Life, Liberty, AND AnN E-mail Address?

    https://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/18/State/Life__liberty___and_a.shtml

    The St. Petersburg Times reported Wednesday that Gov. Jeb Bush is
    considering giving every Floridian a free e-mail address — all 16
    million of them. The project would be “paid for by the government and
    our partners in technology,” Bush said. The proposal is still in the
    planning stages.

    JMI Executive Vice President Curt Leonard had this to say about the
    story:

    “While the governor’s idea of providing every Floridian a ‘free’ e-mail
    address was expressed with the best of intentions, there is something
    about it that is just too.Orwellian. Does the government have to get
    into everything just because it means well? The state of Florida has
    enough on its plate without ‘giving away’ e-mail addresses.

    “Gratis government e-mail addresses cuts both ways, since, if received,
    the government now has your e-mail address! At some point, the next
    great idea will be to give people an ID number/address that will take
    care of drivers licenses, social security, e-mail addresses and on and
    on.

    Whenever the government wants to ‘help’ it’s important to always ask the
    question, ‘how could this be screwed up?’ and then proceed from there.”

    Above article is quoted from The James Madison Institute , Madison
    Policy Digest June 23, 2003 https://www.jamesmadison.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – Why Piddle Around?

    Jobs and Economic Development

    By John W. Courtney, Senior Fellow, AIFE

    The economy slows and states scramble for a response. State economic
    development gurus scour state budgets, asking: “Where do we find money
    to create jobs?” Meanwhile unemployment and welfare leaders dole cash to
    claimants asking: “How long must we wait for jobs.” The opportunity to
    turn cash support into jobs and economic development is ripe. Sound
    familiar?

    A Lesson from the Depression – How not to do it

    In 1935, with unemployment at 18 percent, President Roosevelt decided to fund
    jobs, not unemployment and he created the Works Progress Administration
    (WPA). The WPA used government money for government jobs and was warmly
    received at first. But when it became apparent that many of the supposed
    jobs were merely “make work,” the WPA lost favor and became rhetorically
    known as We Piddle Around.

    Roosevelt reemphasized the project nature of the program, renaming it
    the Works Projects Administration and over eight years, the WPA built
    thousands of schools, bridges and other public projects. More
    importantly, 8.5 million people worked and reaped the financial and
    psychological benefits of work.

    Unfortunately, the WPA was expensive and, according to many economists
    had little economic development effect on the national economy, which
    eventually climbed out of the Great Depression with monetary stimulus
    and the consequent private sector spending.

    The lessons are simple: 1) real work works and “make work” doesn’t, 2)
    private works not public works stimulate the economy and 3) costs must
    be controlled.

    Promoting Work Today – Subsidized Wages

    The modern-day scaled-down cousins of the WPA are subsidized wage
    programs. They come in a variety of forms, but are widely underutilized
    in most states.

    Subsidized wage programs take the money states spend on the unemployed
    (cash benefits or classroom training) and offer it to employers who
    agree to provide job seekers with a job, training and a regular wage.
    The subsidy normally funds about half of the employer’s wage cost for
    three to six months, providing an incentive and ensuring a partnership.

    Wage subsidies have evolved to answer the criticisms of the Roosevelt
    era program. They: 1) create real work with employers who will not hire
    an employee for “make work;” 2) promote economic development by
    targeting job creation and immediately increasing production; and 3)
    contain costs by simply converting previously committed money.

    An Example

    One such subsidized wage program operates in Oregon. Over 10,000
    employers have used it and say they like the program. They like it so
    much that when surveyed by the state, over 96% that used the program
    were in favor of the program, and over 80% said it helped their business
    by: 1) lowering costs; 2) increasing their capacity; and/or 3)
    supporting expansion.

    Sound like economic development?

    Consider the economic impact in modest-sized Oregon (pop. 3.5 million).
    In fiscal year 2001, over $25 million normally used to subsidize
    unemployment was used to subsidize jobs and injected back into the
    economy in the form of production. Wages paid in the economy were twice
    the amount of benefit checks, and the unemployed became producers in the
    economy, tapping the multiplier effect and adding to the tax base.

    Compare this to other economic development programs, for example, tax
    credits that lure jobs from one community to another – arguably a zero
    sum game. And consider the cost/savings:

    In 2002, over one third of US unemployment insurance claimants exhausted
    their claims without finding work costing states well over $5,000 a
    piece – US Department of Labor.
    Welfare recipients who need the most help spend years on welfare costing
    nearly $10,000 per year and sometimes bumping into their five-year
    eligibility limits without finding work.
    Typical wage subsidies range from $3,000 to $5,000.

    Job Seekers

    Job seekers fared well too. State studies show that over 65% of
    participants found permanent jobs at the end of the program and that it
    increased their wages. Over 80% of participants approved of the program
    and would choose it again, if they could.

    But is on-the-job training needed? According the W.E. Upjohn Institute
    for Employment Research, in a recent study on the subject, not only is
    on-the-job training critical, attaining it through subsidized wages is
    one of the most effective ways to help people move into work. 1

    Funding

    How do states fund subsidized wages?

    Welfare (TANF) – include it in the state plan (many states already have)

    Unemployment Insurance – divert part of the UI tax to a state-controlled
    fund similar to other diversions many states have or include it in the
    state’s training UI program
    Workforce Investment Act – local boards can fund on-the-job training as
    provided under the Act
    NAFTA and Trade Adjustment Act – allowable under the terms of the acts
    Food Stamp Employment and Training – include it in the state’s plan
    With so many cost-free ways to create jobs and economic development, one
    question remains:
    Why piddle around?

    ####

    1 Fighting Poverty with Labor Demand Policies, Upjohn Institute, Timothy
    J. Bartik, Senior Economist

    Above article is quoted from American Institute for Full Employment,
    Step, Spring 2003 https://www.fullemployment.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “Truth and news are not the same thing.” — Katharine Graham, The
    Washington Post

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 1314 S. King Street, Suite 1163, Honolulu, HI 96814. Phone/fax is 808-591-9193, cell phone is 808-864-1776. Send him an email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’See the Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

    Grassroot Perspective – July 23, 2003-Precautionary Principle a Risky Gambit; Life, Liberty, and AnN E-mail Address?; Why Piddle Around? Jobs and Economic Development

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – Precautionary Principle a Risky Gambit

    By Michael De Alessi

    https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/16/ED264780.DTL

    The recently passed Precautionary Principle ordinance purports to make
    San Francisco a leader by “challenging traditional assumptions about
    risk management.” In truth, it will likely be bad for the city, public
    health and the environment.

    The precautionary principle is routinely described as “better safe than
    sorry.” Risk reduction is a laudable goal, but only when weighed against
    the risks of not taking certain actions. The trick is balancing the two.
    The city needs a policy of risk management and mitigation, not a mandate
    for the elimination of risk, which is simply impossible.

    The ordinance mandates “selection of the alternative that presents the
    least potential threat to human health.” But what if the least riskiest
    option also confers the least benefit? Although it has now been added
    (but only once), the word “benefit” did not appear in the original ordinance. San Franciscans should know better.

    AIDS activists here have had to fight the FDA tooth and nail over drug
    approvals because the FDA believes potential risks outweigh potential
    benefits.

    That is, the FDA practices the precautionary principle.

    Of course, many chemicals pose health risks, and we should do everything
    we can to lessen their impact on our lives and to find alternatives. But
    not at the expense of inferior alternatives that result in greater harm
    to human health or the environment. Activists have targeted genetically
    modified organisms because they carry an uncertain risk. But many of
    those organisms drastically reduce pesticide use, a good thing by the
    activists’ own standards.

    Here’s how Chronicle columnist Ruth Rosen described the Precautionary
    Principle ordinance (“Better safe than sorry,” June 19): “When science
    cannot yet fully establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but can
    provide reasonable evidence of harm, this principle urges us to take
    precautionary measures. In other words, if we wait until we’re
    absolutely certain, we’ve probably waited too long.”

    It sounds just as reasonable to say: “When science cannot yet fully
    establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but can provide reasonable
    evidence of benefit, this principle urges us to act.” In fact, both
    approaches are meaningless unless risk and benefit, including cost, are
    taken into account.

    San Francisco is a dangerous place to cross the street, yet thousands of
    people do it every day. Applying the precautionary principle, however,
    pedestrians would have to be certain that no car loomed around the
    corner. They would never get out the front door.

    Obviously, there are different scales of risks. It is more dangerous to
    cross 19th Avenue at rush hour than a secluded cul-de-sac at lunchtime.
    But if all risk is unacceptable, as it is for proponents of the
    precautionary principle, both would be treated the same way, which is
    irrational.

    Perhaps the most infamous example of risk reduction at all costs
    occurred in Peru in 1991. After a U.S. EPA study found evidence of an
    increase in cancer risk from a chlorine byproduct, officials in Peru
    stopped using chlorine to disinfect drinking water, resulting in a
    widespread cholera outbreak that killed thousands. Innumerable cases
    show that the elimination of “dangerous” risks would result in a lower
    standard of health and well-being.

    By setting an unattainable benchmark, San Francisco’s Precautionary
    Principle ordinance has no way to measure success. To be truly on the
    cutting edge of risk management, the city should institute some
    performance measures that take risk, benefit and cost into account. The
    goal should not be risk reduction alone but a net improvement in human
    health and safety.

    In these days of cash-strapped cities and states, we need the maximum
    benefit possible. That means scientifically rigorous assessments of risk
    that consider whatever means are available to improve health and
    environmental safety.

    ####

    Michael De Alessi is Director of Natural Resource Policy at Reason
    Foundation https://www.rppi.org

    Above article is quoted by the author’s permission. It appeared on July
    17, 2003 in San Francisco Chronicle.

    – Life, Liberty, AND AnN E-mail Address?

    https://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/18/State/Life__liberty___and_a.shtml

    The St. Petersburg Times reported Wednesday that Gov. Jeb Bush is
    considering giving every Floridian a free e-mail address — all 16
    million of them. The project would be “paid for by the government and
    our partners in technology,” Bush said. The proposal is still in the
    planning stages.

    JMI Executive Vice President Curt Leonard had this to say about the
    story:

    “While the governor’s idea of providing every Floridian a ‘free’ e-mail
    address was expressed with the best of intentions, there is something
    about it that is just too.Orwellian. Does the government have to get
    into everything just because it means well? The state of Florida has
    enough on its plate without ‘giving away’ e-mail addresses.

    “Gratis government e-mail addresses cuts both ways, since, if received,
    the government now has your e-mail address! At some point, the next
    great idea will be to give people an ID number/address that will take
    care of drivers licenses, social security, e-mail addresses and on and
    on.

    Whenever the government wants to ‘help’ it’s important to always ask the
    question, ‘how could this be screwed up?’ and then proceed from there.”

    Above article is quoted from The James Madison Institute , Madison
    Policy Digest June 23, 2003 https://www.jamesmadison.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – Why Piddle Around?

    Jobs and Economic Development

    By John W. Courtney, Senior Fellow, AIFE

    The economy slows and states scramble for a response. State economic
    development gurus scour state budgets, asking: “Where do we find money
    to create jobs?” Meanwhile unemployment and welfare leaders dole cash to
    claimants asking: “How long must we wait for jobs.” The opportunity to
    turn cash support into jobs and economic development is ripe. Sound
    familiar?

    A Lesson from the Depression – How not to do it

    In 1935, with unemployment at 18 percent, President Roosevelt decided to fund
    jobs, not unemployment and he created the Works Progress Administration
    (WPA). The WPA used government money for government jobs and was warmly
    received at first. But when it became apparent that many of the supposed
    jobs were merely “make work,” the WPA lost favor and became rhetorically
    known as We Piddle Around.

    Roosevelt reemphasized the project nature of the program, renaming it
    the Works Projects Administration and over eight years, the WPA built
    thousands of schools, bridges and other public projects. More
    importantly, 8.5 million people worked and reaped the financial and
    psychological benefits of work.

    Unfortunately, the WPA was expensive and, according to many economists
    had little economic development effect on the national economy, which
    eventually climbed out of the Great Depression with monetary stimulus
    and the consequent private sector spending.

    The lessons are simple: 1) real work works and “make work” doesn’t, 2)
    private works not public works stimulate the economy and 3) costs must
    be controlled.

    Promoting Work Today – Subsidized Wages

    The modern-day scaled-down cousins of the WPA are subsidized wage
    programs. They come in a variety of forms, but are widely underutilized
    in most states.

    Subsidized wage programs take the money states spend on the unemployed
    (cash benefits or classroom training) and offer it to employers who
    agree to provide job seekers with a job, training and a regular wage.
    The subsidy normally funds about half of the employer’s wage cost for
    three to six months, providing an incentive and ensuring a partnership.

    Wage subsidies have evolved to answer the criticisms of the Roosevelt
    era program. They: 1) create real work with employers who will not hire
    an employee for “make work;” 2) promote economic development by
    targeting job creation and immediately increasing production; and 3)
    contain costs by simply converting previously committed money.

    An Example

    One such subsidized wage program operates in Oregon. Over 10,000
    employers have used it and say they like the program. They like it so
    much that when surveyed by the state, over 96% that used the program
    were in favor of the program, and over 80% said it helped their business
    by: 1) lowering costs; 2) increasing their capacity; and/or 3)
    supporting expansion.

    Sound like economic development?

    Consider the economic impact in modest-sized Oregon (pop. 3.5 million).
    In fiscal year 2001, over $25 million normally used to subsidize
    unemployment was used to subsidize jobs and injected back into the
    economy in the form of production. Wages paid in the economy were twice
    the amount of benefit checks, and the unemployed became producers in the
    economy, tapping the multiplier effect and adding to the tax base.

    Compare this to other economic development programs, for example, tax
    credits that lure jobs from one community to another – arguably a zero
    sum game. And consider the cost/savings:

    In 2002, over one third of US unemployment insurance claimants exhausted
    their claims without finding work costing states well over $5,000 a
    piece – US Department of Labor.
    Welfare recipients who need the most help spend years on welfare costing
    nearly $10,000 per year and sometimes bumping into their five-year
    eligibility limits without finding work.
    Typical wage subsidies range from $3,000 to $5,000.

    Job Seekers

    Job seekers fared well too. State studies show that over 65% of
    participants found permanent jobs at the end of the program and that it
    increased their wages. Over 80% of participants approved of the program
    and would choose it again, if they could.

    But is on-the-job training needed? According the W.E. Upjohn Institute
    for Employment Research, in a recent study on the subject, not only is
    on-the-job training critical, attaining it through subsidized wages is
    one of the most effective ways to help people move into work. 1

    Funding

    How do states fund subsidized wages?

    Welfare (TANF) – include it in the state plan (many states already have)

    Unemployment Insurance – divert part of the UI tax to a state-controlled
    fund similar to other diversions many states have or include it in the
    state’s training UI program
    Workforce Investment Act – local boards can fund on-the-job training as
    provided under the Act
    NAFTA and Trade Adjustment Act – allowable under the terms of the acts
    Food Stamp Employment and Training – include it in the state’s plan
    With so many cost-free ways to create jobs and economic development, one
    question remains:
    Why piddle around?

    ####

    1 Fighting Poverty with Labor Demand Policies, Upjohn Institute, Timothy
    J. Bartik, Senior Economist

    Above article is quoted from American Institute for Full Employment,
    Step, Spring 2003 https://www.fullemployment.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “Truth and news are not the same thing.” — Katharine Graham, The
    Washington Post

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, 1314 S. King Street, Suite 1163, Honolulu, HI 96814. Phone/fax is 808-591-9193, cell phone is 808-864-1776. Send him an email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’See the Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/