Why Govt's, Celebrities, NGOs, Media, Doctors & Politicians peddle vaccines.

[Guest guest]

Jagannath Chatterjee - view profileDate:Wed, Oct 4 2006 3:04 am Email: Jagannath Chatterjee jagcha... Why Govt's, Celebrities, NGOs, Media, Doctors & Politicians peddle vaccines.http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/oct13_Butler.php (viewable with subscription only) FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONE By Hilary Butler On 31 January 2001, New Zealand Doctor ran an article on page 9 by Penny St John, called Mandatory Jabs Short Cut To Increasing Rates. This was a "briefing", sponsored by the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck and Co, for journalists in the Asia/Pacific regions. Why just journalists? Because, as a 1997 World Health Organization publication clearly spells out, (14) an "on-side" media is vital to them. WHO was planning the first of many regular summits on vaccination at the time of publication, and they see the role of WHO and the vaccine manufacturers to undertake: Pg 90: "the recruitment of those people who are able to back scientific declarations with political commitment for action: heads of state, or other high-level government officials such as prime ministers, governors or senators; national policy-makers from both the health and finance sectors; directors of international organizations; and directors of agencies from the donor assistance community. A third group of participants in the meeting would be media representatives from as broad a spectrum as reminded, that vaccines and immunization are one of the most cost-effective health interventions to day, and that they save the lives of millions of children every year." Why is it essential that the public be informed and continually reminded….? Pg 16: "2.3 To create and expand demand for vaccines: inform the public and decision makers on the value of disease prevention and the role of vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention." Pg 43: "The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the "health consciousness" of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local leaders and other partners need to be used to reach this objective." (emphasis in this article is usually mine)) So, they need to: "4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for the public on immunization programmes, vaccines and the risks of infectious diseases." (Page 46) Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20 under a heading "Fostering a culture of prevention through advocacy for vaccines" which discusses action to maintain local and political commitment to vaccines: "This can be done only through active efforts which inform the public of the benefits and risks of vaccination, the real risks of infectious diseases in their community and the impact of these problems on society as well as the individual. Similar efforts must also be directed at opinion leaders and those who provide resources so that support to immunization efforts can be dramatically expanded to provide better protection." And how does WHO propose to do this? Firstly, they want to do: "Social and behaviour research on attitudes and access to immunization… to guide the process of expanding protection.") In other words, it is all about how we change perceptions, so that people ",1] ); //--> possible. It is essential that the public be informed, and continually reminded, that vaccines and immunization are one of the most cost-effective health interventions to day, and that they save the lives of millions of children every year." Why is it essential that the public be informed and continually reminded….? Pg 16: "2.3 To create and expand demand for vaccines: inform the public and decision makers on the value of disease prevention and the role of vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention." Pg 43: "The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the "health consciousness" of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local leaders and other partners need to be used to reach this objective." (emphasis in this article is usually mine)) So, they need to: "4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for the public on immunization programmes, vaccines and the risks of infectious diseases." (Page 46) Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20 under a heading "Fostering a culture of prevention through advocacy for vaccines" which discusses action to maintain local and political commitment to vaccines: "This can be done only through active efforts which inform the public of the benefits and risks of vaccination, the real risks of infectious diseases in their community and the impact of these problems on society as well as the individual. Similar efforts must also be directed at opinion leaders and those who provide resources so that support to immunization efforts can be dramatically expanded to provide better protection." And how does WHO propose to do this? Firstly, they want to do: "Social and behaviour research on attitudes and access to immunization… to guide the process of expanding protection.") In other words, it is all about how we change perceptions, so that people we have to study those who don’t vaccinate and change their attitudes and behaviour, ..and the media is where it is at…. (Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in America starting doing a study, and were appealing to parents who didn’t vaccinate to contact them and tell them why. I have a copy of the fax sent out. The interesting thing, as far as I know, is that some parents smelled a rat.) WHO also needs to "Help countries identify where to acquire vaccines; how to acquire them; how to assure their quality; and how to finance vaccines as costs rise and resources diminish" (Pg 59) Note the above: "AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES DIMINISH" How do they know that costs will rise and resources diminish? What "resources" might they be? Is there something else they aren’t telling us? Costs can only rise if countries choose to diminish their resources by making vaccine companies a big money extractor from their health budget. WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on side, to spew out free fear-mongering information often enough to make people scared enough, so that they want everything WHO has to offer. And WHO has identified just the way to do this: "Promote the use of mass media sources, such as internet, to address the value of immunization and vaccines Identify community leaders to act as advocates for immunization programmes and vaccines" And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book: "establish a clear agenda of action for decision makers including ascertaining that vaccine supplies, immunization infrastructure finance and support systems (such as training; education and communication materials; and monitoring systems) are adequate …develop recommendations that encourage all countries to implement the ",1] ); //--> will willingly allow us to inject whatever we like into them. To do that, we have to study those who don’t vaccinate and change their attitudes and behaviour, ..and the media is where it is at…. (Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in America starting doing a study, and were appealing to parents who didn’t vaccinate to contact them and tell them why. I have a copy of the fax sent out. The interesting thing, as far as I know, is that some parents smelled a rat.) WHO also needs to "Help countries identify where to acquire vaccines; how to acquire them; how to assure their quality; and how to finance vaccines as costs rise and resources diminish" (Pg 59) Note the above: "AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES DIMINISH" How do they know that costs will rise and resources diminish? What "resources" might they be? Is there something else they aren’t telling us? Costs can only rise if countries choose to diminish their resources by making vaccine companies a big money extractor from their health budget. WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on side, to spew out free fear-mongering information often enough to make people scared enough, so that they want everything WHO has to offer. And WHO has identified just the way to do this: "Promote the use of mass media sources, such as internet, to address the value of immunization and vaccines Identify community leaders to act as advocates for immunization programmes and vaccines" And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book: "establish a clear agenda of action for decision makers including ascertaining that vaccine supplies, immunization infrastructure finance and support systems (such as training; education and communication materials; and monitoring systems) are adequate …develop recommendations that encourage all countries to implement the "create , or strengthen National Control Authorities responsible for vaccines;inform decision makers on the benefits of immunization and vaccines to their communities." But never mind the risks. After all, there aren’t any, are there. Bear in mind, while considering these objectives, that there must be another reason. Can the following bit of humour floating around offer a clue? "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. But what is concealed is crucial" As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn’t actually about disease prevention. That’s just the make-up on the face, to make it look altruistic, and caring. It’s about a "delicate fabric of cooperation". It’s about money. Now, and in the future. Consider this,… WHO stated that Global expenditure on vaccines in 1994, with only the more basic vaccines was a "mere" estimate of $ USA 10 billion dollars (pg 48). In the context of what it might be today, let us not forget that SmithKlineBeecham’s Engerix B vaccine sales alone, exceeded $1 billion dollars in 1995(15). The figures now are staggering with sums you can’t even imagine. As Dr Hilleman is quoted as saying (21): "this is the golden Era of vaccine research." In the very next breath Duke University’s Dr Samuel Katz enthuses: "Spell it "b-o-o-m". Protection from frivolous lawsuits has given large companies increased freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which biotech companies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances." The key issue is how to get the most dollars with the least risk to shareholders. Unfortunately, that is not by developing the older type vaccines. As Signals Magazine put it: "A killed virus yields little hope for broad patent protection, but ",1] ); //--> widest practical range of vaccination activities….create , or strengthen National Control Authorities responsible for vaccines;inform decision makers on the benefits of immunization and vaccines to their communities." But never mind the risks. After all, there aren’t any, are there. Bear in mind, while considering these objectives, that there must be another reason. Can the following bit of humour floating around offer a clue? "Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is revealed is interesting. But what is concealed is crucial" As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn’t actually about disease prevention. That’s just the make-up on the face, to make it look altruistic, and caring. It’s about a "delicate fabric of cooperation". It’s about money. Now, and in the future. Consider this,… WHO stated that Global expenditure on vaccines in 1994, with only the more basic vaccines was a "mere" estimate of $ USA 10 billion dollars (pg 48). In the context of what it might be today, let us not forget that SmithKlineBeecham’s Engerix B vaccine sales alone, exceeded $1 billion dollars in 1995(15). The figures now are staggering with sums you can’t even imagine. As Dr Hilleman is quoted as saying (21): "this is the golden Era of vaccine research." In the very next breath Duke University’s Dr Samuel Katz enthuses: "Spell it "b-o-o-m". Protection from frivolous lawsuits has given large companies increased freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which biotech companies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances." The key issue is how to get the most dollars with the least risk to shareholders. Unfortunately, that is not by developing the older type vaccines. As Signals Magazine put it: "A killed virus yields little hope for broad patent protection, but prophylaxis, patentability and the promise of fatter profits.Some of these new products with be plenty pricey." A good example was the Hepatitis B vaccine, which when first introduced was made from pooled human blood from American homosexuals, because this contained huge amounts of antigen. But it ran into both professional and consumer resistance. In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit vaccine by Merck came out, and like Smith Kline’s version, is, according to Signals Magazine, "a billion-dollar-a-year item". The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine combinations, which Merck has right up its sleeve…. A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this in a larger context as they see it: "There have been significant new developments at the early stages of the vaccine continuum. Much of this has, however, only been applied in industrialized countries, and even there incompletely. The pace of innovation is increasing. This highlights the need for concerted action so that the potential for public health benefits in all areas of the world is accelerated and maximized." But to continue with WHO’s adoption of the media as the key to success: Pg 91 To increase advocacy for vaccines and immunization through widespread inclusion of the media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, and follow-up activities. A fourth group of participants in such forums are: " 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and national immunization program managers." And when you read this book, you cannot help but notice, that NOWHERE does this book mentions the concerns of the real consumers who are the lay people to whom vaccines are given. Because "we", the uninvited, are their means to their end. Therefore, this whole strategy is aimed at us. We must ",1] ); //--> identifying a critical subunit protein to use in a vaccine offers prophylaxis, patentability and the promise of fatter profits.Some of these new products with be plenty pricey." A good example was the Hepatitis B vaccine, which when first introduced was made from pooled human blood from American homosexuals, because this contained huge amounts of antigen. But it ran into both professional and consumer resistance. In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit vaccine by Merck came out, and like Smith Kline’s version, is, according to Signals Magazine, "a billion-dollar-a-year item". The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine combinations, which Merck has right up its sleeve…. A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this in a larger context as they see it: "There have been significant new developments at the early stages of the vaccine continuum. Much of this has, however, only been applied in industrialized countries, and even there incompletely. The pace of innovation is increasing. This highlights the need for concerted action so that the potential for public health benefits in all areas of the world is accelerated and maximized." But to continue with WHO’s adoption of the media as the key to success: Pg 91 To increase advocacy for vaccines and immunization through widespread inclusion of the media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, and follow-up activities. A fourth group of participants in such forums are: " 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and national immunization program managers." And when you read this book, you cannot help but notice, that NOWHERE does this book mentions the concerns of the real consumers who are the lay people to whom vaccines are given. Because "we", the uninvited, are their means to their end. Therefore, this whole strategy is aimed at us. We must And in their eyes, what would we know, and so why should we be consulted? They only want to involve those critical to the success of the fulfillment of the stated goals: Pg 91 "Participants critical to the success of the meeting will be selected by the Summit Steering Committee and will be financially supported." This document was written around the time that a medical journal (16) described what they call "United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric of Public and Private Collaboration." On pages 1015 — 1016 the article read: "To achieve the full promise of modern science and technology …America’s cooperative and collaborative relationships in vaccine research and development are interwoven into a fabric of innovation. This must be maintained and strengthened. It is important to understand the nature of these relationships to prevent inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric." More about this "delicate fabric" a little later… but on page 1018 the article continues: "This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development across the board…. Reductions in federal funding for vaccine research and development will have a secondary effect in academia and thereby on the United States capacity to engage in vaccine research.If the regulatory climate becomes cumbersome, regulation itself can become a hurdle, making it more difficult for new companies to enter the vaccine research and development area.Price controls are a source of concern… because investors fear the potential profits will be compromised.Collaboration and cooperation of government agencies, such as NIH, CDC, ",1] ); //--> not know that this is all so masterfully manipulated. And in their eyes, what would we know, and so why should we be consulted? They only want to involve those critical to the success of the fulfillment of the stated goals: Pg 91 "Participants critical to the success of the meeting will be selected by the Summit Steering Committee and will be financially supported." This document was written around the time that a medical journal (16) described what they call "United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric of Public and Private Collaboration." On pages 1015 — 1016 the article read: "To achieve the full promise of modern science and technology …America’s cooperative and collaborative relationships in vaccine research and development are interwoven into a fabric of innovation. This must be maintained and strengthened. It is important to understand the nature of these relationships to prevent inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric." More about this "delicate fabric" a little later… but on page 1018 the article continues: "This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development across the board…. Reductions in federal funding for vaccine research and development will have a secondary effect in academia and thereby on the United States capacity to engage in vaccine research.If the regulatory climate becomes cumbersome, regulation itself can become a hurdle, making it more difficult for new companies to enter the vaccine research and development area.Price controls are a source of concern… because investors fear the potential profits will be compromised.Collaboration and cooperation of government agencies, such as NIH, CDC, academia are essential to continue success and fulfill the promise of recent advances in science and technology.Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine research and development network jeopardize the rapid development and supply of new… vaccines for the American people….These National Vaccine Advisory Committee recommendations will help to ensure that public policies take into consideration this research and development network, and foster and sustain it to facilitate the timely introduction and supply of new vaccines." In other words: we want to do what we want, when we want, unregulated, with no price cap, and with the NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID and DOD in our back pocket. So, how do we best get what we want? One way, was for vaccine manufacturers to fund Bush’s inauguration (17) to the tune of $1.7 million US dollars. Not only that, Public Citizen, a congress watchdog group published in November 2000, that in the lead up to the election: "The prescription drug industry is spending approximately $230 million this election cycle on lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as it tries to shape public policy in the face of increasing public hostility to its price-gouging and profiteering." Which included: $170 million for lobbying, $15 million in direct campaign contributions at least $35 million in campaign ads at least $10 million to the US Chamber of Commerce for pro-drug industry campaign ads. A delicate fabric indeed. What goes around, is expected to come around. And clearly a plan which the WHO is delighted to participate in, judging by a 1998 comment in one of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee, Executive Secretary of the Children’s Vaccine Initiative talks about the fact that: "…to people outside the international vaccine community… new syndromes…. ",1] ); //--> FDA, USAID, DOD, large vaccine companies, small research companies and academia are essential to continue success and fulfill the promise of recent advances in science and technology.Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine research and development network jeopardize the rapid development and supply of new… vaccines for the American people….These National Vaccine Advisory Committee recommendations will help to ensure that public policies take into consideration this research and development network, and foster and sustain it to facilitate the timely introduction and supply of new vaccines." In other words: we want to do what we want, when we want, unregulated, with no price cap, and with the NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID and DOD in our back pocket. So, how do we best get what we want? One way, was for vaccine manufacturers to fund Bush’s inauguration (17) to the tune of $1.7 million US dollars. Not only that, Public Citizen, a congress watchdog group published in November 2000, that in the lead up to the election: "The prescription drug industry is spending approximately $230 million this election cycle on lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as it tries to shape public policy in the face of increasing public hostility to its price-gouging and profiteering." Which included: $170 million for lobbying, $15 million in direct campaign contributions at least $35 million in campaign ads at least $10 million to the US Chamber of Commerce for pro-drug industry campaign ads. A delicate fabric indeed. What goes around, is expected to come around. And clearly a plan which the WHO is delighted to participate in, judging by a 1998 comment in one of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee, Executive Secretary of the Children’s Vaccine Initiative talks about the fact that: "…to people outside the international vaccine community… new syndromes…. hantavirus, Lassa, dengue or tick-borne diseases, or a new kind of flu, not to speak of Aids … are bad news." He goes on to say B-U-T: "To people like me and my GPV colleagues, its good news. All right, we have a daunting task. And maybe we won’t win in the end. Maybe as vaccine researcher and developer Stanley Plotkin said, prevention by vaccination is "the El Dorado of research in infectious diseases.". "Maybe. But for me it’s good news mainly because, unlike El Dorado, vaccines are for real….they are already preventing more than 3 million deaths every year and could prevent another 9 million if we make new and better vaccines and find ways of ensuring they are fully used. And there’s no reason why we shouldn’t succeed: Just 3 years ago, there were "only" about 150 vaccine candidates in development; today, only 4 years after GPV was created, there are about 240.Yes, indeed, the news for us in the vaccine business is good.And yes, we’re human beings and have got to eat, and the continual emergence of new diseases means our jobs aren’t likely to disappear in the near future." The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s was under threat, as court cases swept the USA and UK, threatening to cause all vaccine companies to fold. So they said. Fortunately for these booming money-makers, with considerable help from the medical professionals and other misguided individuals, the USA government passed legislation which shielded vaccine producers from all liability not related to manufacturing error (20). But the funny thing is, that publicly, people associated with vaccine argue that vaccines are such a small part of their inventory, that making them really isn’t worth their while. Unless, that is, there are no impediments. ",1] ); //--> like prion diseases, viral haemorrhagic fevers like Ebola, Marburg, hantavirus, Lassa, dengue or tick-borne diseases, or a new kind of flu, not to speak of Aids … are bad news." He goes on to say B-U-T: "To people like me and my GPV colleagues, its good news. All right, we have a daunting task. And maybe we won’t win in the end. Maybe as vaccine researcher and developer Stanley Plotkin said, prevention by vaccination is "the El Dorado of research in infectious diseases.". "Maybe. But for me it’s good news mainly because, unlike El Dorado, vaccines are for real….they are already preventing more than 3 million deaths every year and could prevent another 9 million if we make new and better vaccines and find ways of ensuring they are fully used. And there’s no reason why we shouldn’t succeed: Just 3 years ago, there were "only" about 150 vaccine candidates in development; today, only 4 years after GPV was created, there are about 240.Yes, indeed, the news for us in the vaccine business is good.And yes, we’re human beings and have got to eat, and the continual emergence of new diseases means our jobs aren’t likely to disappear in the near future." The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s was under threat, as court cases swept the USA and UK, threatening to cause all vaccine companies to fold. So they said. Fortunately for these booming money-makers, with considerable help from the medical professionals and other misguided individuals, the USA government passed legislation which shielded vaccine producers from all liability not related to manufacturing error (20). But the funny thing is, that publicly, people associated with vaccine argue that vaccines are such a small part of their inventory, that making them really isn’t worth their while. Unless, that is, there are no impediments. page headlines. Years later, the publicity machine that has been so carefully orchestrated, that delicate fabric of partnership between vested interests, is now in full swing. Just about every other day, you can turn to the New Zealand Herald and see the next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic bullet, uncritically paraded to continue the subtle sheeple conditioning process so carefully conceived by WHO and their consorts. So the enthusiastic "reportage" which flowed from St John’s pen was to be expected. It probably never occurred to her that "investigative journalism", or "balanced journalism" was even a possibility. She most likely saw her job simply to "report", uncritically, what happened there. And I’m glad she did, because to those who know, it does the drug company no favours. It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr Thomas Vernon, the vice president of public health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck Vaccine Division’s opening shot in the article was: "New Zealand should consider mandatory vaccination for children as a way of quickly raising the country’s low immunization rates." He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths are not justifiable in New Zealand and that: "New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear seatbelts and questions why this form of protection is not extended to include vaccination." He also said: "the UK system of assigning each child to a GP and giving financial incentives for GPs who achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted in high levels of vaccination without mandate." Let’s look at what this meant, for GPs in England. In a magazine called Financial Pulse, dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this. The first was by a GP in Radlett, Herts, called "The Problem" In this, Dr Jan ",1] ); //--> Funny how that wasn’t the story when the USA DPT supply fiasco was front page headlines. Years later, the publicity machine that has been so carefully orchestrated, that delicate fabric of partnership between vested interests, is now in full swing. Just about every other day, you can turn to the New Zealand Herald and see the next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic bullet, uncritically paraded to continue the subtle sheeple conditioning process so carefully conceived by WHO and their consorts. So the enthusiastic "reportage" which flowed from St John’s pen was to be expected. It probably never occurred to her that "investigative journalism", or "balanced journalism" was even a possibility. She most likely saw her job simply to "report", uncritically, what happened there. And I’m glad she did, because to those who know, it does the drug company no favours. It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr Thomas Vernon, the vice president of public health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck Vaccine Division’s opening shot in the article was: "New Zealand should consider mandatory vaccination for children as a way of quickly raising the country’s low immunization rates." He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths are not justifiable in New Zealand and that: "New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear seatbelts and questions why this form of protection is not extended to include vaccination." He also said: "the UK system of assigning each child to a GP and giving financial incentives for GPs who achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted in high levels of vaccination without mandate." Let’s look at what this meant, for GPs in England. In a magazine called Financial Pulse, dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this. The first was by a GP in Radlett, Herts, called "The Problem" In this, Dr Jan from vaccinations and immunizations were well below the national average, and "should represent between 5 — 10% of item-of-service income…It is therefore an important source of earnings." She goes on to detail the two levels of target payments — one at 70% vaccination rates (5,790 pounds), and a higher one at 90% coverage (at the lower level plus 11,580 pounds). She considers that improving her income by 17,370 pounds is worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Some memorable quotes are: "There is no item-of-service fee for some public policy immunizations, for example influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still worth generating income from these through the reimbursement scheme. This practice could generate up to 3,700 pounds from an effective annual influenza vaccination campaign if it immunized 10% of the practiceand immunizing 5% of "targeted" patients would bring in 3,000 pounds.Many practices are finding this (foreign travel) a growth area, so it could be costly to ignore… the GPs in this practice should consider starting a travel clinic, run by the practice nurse. They should first direct this at their own patients, but there might be scope later to expand it to a private service for patients registered with other practices.Good marketing is the secret of increasing uptake in this area…." Why only 10%, or 5%? I mean, if it matter so much about people protection, why not everyone? Or, when you look at those projected figures, would that just look a bit too greedy? The other article is by Dr Mike Townsend, and is entitled "Travel vaccines — broaden your earnings," where he explains how GPs can take advantage of patients’ trips to exotic destinations…. As you can see, the interweaving web of who can make more money, and how, ",1] ); //--> Gold tells us that they analysed their accounts, and found their earnings from vaccinations and immunizations were well below the national average, and "should represent between 5 — 10% of item-of-service income…It is therefore an important source of earnings." She goes on to detail the two levels of target payments — one at 70% vaccination rates (5,790 pounds), and a higher one at 90% coverage (at the lower level plus 11,580 pounds). She considers that improving her income by 17,370 pounds is worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Some memorable quotes are: "There is no item-of-service fee for some public policy immunizations, for example influenza, pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still worth generating income from these through the reimbursement scheme. This practice could generate up to 3,700 pounds from an effective annual influenza vaccination campaign if it immunized 10% of the practiceand immunizing 5% of "targeted" patients would bring in 3,000 pounds.Many practices are finding this (foreign travel) a growth area, so it could be costly to ignore… the GPs in this practice should consider starting a travel clinic, run by the practice nurse. They should first direct this at their own patients, but there might be scope later to expand it to a private service for patients registered with other practices.Good marketing is the secret of increasing uptake in this area…." Why only 10%, or 5%? I mean, if it matter so much about people protection, why not everyone? Or, when you look at those projected figures, would that just look a bit too greedy? The other article is by Dr Mike Townsend, and is entitled "Travel vaccines — broaden your earnings," where he explains how GPs can take advantage of patients’ trips to exotic destinations…. As you can see, the interweaving web of who can make more money, and how, Back to the New Zealand Doctor article. Does Dr Vernon have a limited appreciation of the difference between his money making products which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint which goes around part of a body in a car — or like helmets, on the head? Or steel-capped boots on the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawing their toes off? None of these external restraints or barriers require a changing of the vital inside defence workings of the body. When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold mine similar to that of their English counterparts, I am sure that any serious tolerance for the concept of informed choice will fade, and we will see a huge increase in the stridency of call for Mandatory Medical Regulation. For our own good, of course. (All references will be published at the end of Part Two) TO BE CONTINUED (hasn\'t come out yet) (I\'ll check with her on this!) ",0] ); //--> just gets bigger and bigger. Back to the New Zealand Doctor article. Does Dr Vernon have a limited appreciation of the difference between his money making products which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint which goes around part of a body in a car — or like helmets, on the head? Or steel-capped boots on the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawing their toes off? None of these external restraints or barriers require a changing of the vital inside defence workings of the body. When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold mine similar to that of their English counterparts, I am sure that any serious tolerance for the concept of informed choice will fade, and we will see a huge increase in the stridency of call for Mandatory Medical Regulation. For our own good, of course. (All references will be published at the end of Part Two) TO BE CONTINUED (hasn't come out yet) (I'll check with her on this!) "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo. Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Small Business.