Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21832)	10/12/2004 1:44:22 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Yes, Ed, We've already been over this ground with you when you first posted the Goering stuff. You didn't answer then my question: why is your favorite political philosopher on democracies a Nazi? What is your fascination with him? Do you believe we live in a fascist or proto-fascist state? Do you know what fascism is? I only ask because most of the people who are spouting Goering (aka leftists) don't have a clue. Kb

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21832)	10/12/2004 2:06:44 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, Speaking of using "fear, distrust and anger to mobilize everyday people" howzabout the Democrats fanning the flames of a draft coming in their efforts to 1) link a draft to President Bush 2) link a draft to the horrors of Vietnam (that is, make LBJ morph into Bush, or Bush morph into a Republican LBJ and 3) help defeat GWB on an absolutely phantom issue? (I guess I'm beginning to see why the leftists are so fond of Herman, he speaks to their souls.) Now, there is fear and loathing. And, as we can read in this admission against interest account from the leftist press (Time mag), it's all fomented by the opportunistic Democrats: "The President has repeatedly said he favors an all-volunteer military, as does John Kerry. But that hasn't dissuaded a loose-knit coterie of online conspiracists, antiwar activists and Democratic Party operatives from keeping the draft rumor alive. The chatter began last year after Democrats introduced a pair of bills in Congress to resume conscription . The bills weren't taken seriously in Washington — Representative Charles Rangel said he introduced his version to make the point that the volunteer military is full of minority kids with few options. But the bills led to the formation of a website called stopthedraftnow.com, and they inspired a largely fallacious, prodigiously forwarded e-mail claiming that the White House was fighting for the bills and that "$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System budget to prepare for a draft." In fact the entire SSS budget is just $26 million, and the system estimates it would need $600 million to oversee a national draft. When Republicans finally brought Rangel's bill to a vote last week, it lost 402 to 2. But by then the rumor had plodded from chat rooms to the mainstream, especially on college campuses. This fall the University of Minnesota's Daily ran an editorial concluding that "re-electing Bush might very well lead to a draft." The National Annenberg Election Survey released last week found that 51% of 18-to-29-year-olds believe that the President wants a draft, in contrast to just 8% who think Kerry does. Kerry surrogates Howard Dean, Max Cleland and Michael Moore have all stoked draft fears. Democratic Iowa Senator Tom Harkin told the Des Moines Register this month that the White House has "secret plans" to begin a draft. And Rock the Vote, the left-leaning group started by the music industry, is running ads featuring a forlorn-looking young man getting a buzz cut. "OFF TO COLLEGE OR OFF TO WAR?" the ad asks. "Could you be drafted?" Democrats, who are no doubt thrilled when reporters call about the draft, say it's a legitimate issue. "The Administration is using the military in a way that may make reinstating the draft necessary in the future," says Jim Jordan, a former Kerry campaign manager. He notes that "it's exactly the kind of issue that gooses base turnout." Maybe. But in dozens of interviews in seven states last week, TIME found that while many students are discussing the draft, few say they will decide their vote on the issue. "The draft is just being used as a tool by Democrats to get Bush," says Kirsten Steffey, a senior at Drake University in Iowa who plans to vote for Kerry. "It's just a distraction from issues I'm more concerned about." Hope as Democrats might, an Election Day boost for Kerry remains, like the draft itself, merely hypothetical." time.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21832)	10/12/2004 2:39:03 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

My Brother: Re: <<He had, you'll recall, participated with some success in getting the German people to a fever pitch for war.>> There are two mistakes in the above statement: 1. Goering privately opposed the war thinking it was the "wrong war at the wrong time." 2. The German People at the start of WWII never got to a "fever pitch." Hitler at the time he invaded Poland sent streams of troops and tanks through the streets of Berlin... expecting the happy demonstrations with which Berliners greeted the war in 1914. Instead, the Germans were silent, worried and even a little sullen as they watched the troops. Bruce

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21832)	10/14/2004 7:10:31 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23153

Re: Single Source For Most U.S. Vaccines My Brother: There seems to be some interest on this "conservative" thread for medical issues, especially as it relates to "trial lawyers." Unless you are provoked, you seemingly post only on Iraq and foreign affairs. The WSJ has an article that is found below dealing with the fact that of the many vaccines needed in the U.S., most are produced by a single manufacturer. Sometimes, as the chart below shows, there are two manufacturers, but this is down from 5 manufacturers for most of these vaccines 10 years ago. Chiron, an American manufacturer based in San Francisco, had its flu vaccine plant in Great Britain. The article suggests that one of the reasons for this reliance on a SINGLE manufacturer is that government IS now the single buyer of these vaccines. There also appears to be the concern that these manufacturers have about tort lawyers. In combination, the result SEEMS to be a dearth of companies who think it is worthwhile to make these vaccines. I wonder if you could use your very fine intellect to address the issue? Bruce XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Infectious Politics October 14, 2004; Page A18 Americans are angry about the sudden shortage of flu vaccine, and well they should be. But we hope they don't fall for the current story line that this is all the fault of a single company and its British factory. The real problem lies with a political class that has driven all but a handful of companies out of the vaccine business. Today there are only two significant makers of flu vaccine for the U.S. market, Aventis-Pasteur and Chiron Corp., which now finds itself besieged by federal subpoenas. The closing of Chiron's plant removes some 48 million vaccine doses (or about half the U.S. market) and puts that many more seniors and children at risk from a disease that kills 36,000 Americans a year. Whether or not Chiron disclosed enough about its manufacturing woes is an issue of financial regulation. The main question for public health ought to be how did we arrive at a place where closing a single plant can endanger so many people? SHOT IN THE DARK Number of Vaccine Makers for U.S. Market, 2003 Hib1 3 Influenza 2 Hepatitis A 2 Hepatitis B 2 DTaP2 2 Measles, mumps, rubella 1 Tetanus 1 Tetanus-diphtheria 1 Polio 1 Chickenpox 1 Pneumococcal conjugate (children) 1 Pneumococcal polysaccharide (adults) 1 Meningococcal 1 Source: Centers for Disease Control 1 Haemophilus influenza type b 2 Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) The answer is that any company brave, or foolish, enough to make vaccines has had to run an obstacle course of price controls, regulation and tort lawyers. Until Congress and federal officials come to grips with these fundamental problems, life-threatening vaccine shortages will continue to occur. (See the nearby table.) Start with regulation. Health authorities understandably want vaccines to pass high safety hurdles, yet they've often gone overboard. A decade ago there were as many as five flu vaccine makers. But a wave of far tighter manufacturing regulations in the 1990s forced several makers out of business, even though it was never clear how these costly requirements would improve an industry with an already solid safety record. Regulatory hurdles have also stifled innovation. It currently takes up to eight months to produce flu vaccine, which is grown with the help of special chicken eggs and is only good for one year. There are new techniques -- such as reverse genetics or mammalian tissue culture -- that promise to accelerate the process and make it less costly and ease shortages. "But regulators inside the FDA view these techniques nervously, and prefer the known," says Scott Gottlieb, a physician and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In short, regulators instinctively believe risks outweigh benefits, and the approval process for new techniques remains difficult -- and costly. Companies that decide to run these regulatory traps also know they will be doing so for very little reward. Before her big health-care reform crashed and burned in 1994, Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to get Congress to pass a government vaccine-buying program for children; her sales pitch was free vaccines for all kids and higher immunization rates. Thus the government now purchases about 60% of all pediatric vaccines, forcing huge discounts and imposing price caps. In 2001, the private-sector cost of immunizing children with the 20 recommended doses of vaccines was $600 per child. The government price was just $400 per child, with vaccine makers swallowing the difference. What has this achieved? Vaccination rates for two-year-olds have stagnated at about 74% for the past several years, while adult rates are significantly lower. And with margins squeezed, some manufacturers have stopped making childhood vaccines. Flu-shot prices are also influenced by a federal and state buying presence (though not as big as in pediatric vaccines), and are set to worsen now that health authorities have added influenza to the Vaccines for Children program. And who can write about health care without bringing up liability? Congress set up a program to protect vaccine makers from the tort lawyers who nearly bankrupted them in the 1980s, but the legal profession has already found loopholes. This is another reason for companies to invest their scarce human and capital resources in something other than vaccines. We wrote about all of this back in 2002 when eight of 11 major childhood vaccines were in short supply, and Congress even passed a liability provision to help. But a trio of Republican Senators -- Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee and Susan Collins -- held their leadership hostage and forced its repeal. Meanwhile, a program to stockpile childhood vaccines has stalled because the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Centers for Disease Control are fighting over how vaccine makers can account for the revenue of producing a stockpile. Maybe the SEC should settle this turf fight before flooding Chiron with legal demands. There's no shortage of ideas for how to promote greater vaccine production, with many of the best ideas coming from the few manufacturers that remain. Now would be a good time to hear them out. As deadly as the flu is, consider the dangers of such infectious diseases as measles or whooping cough. Those are the next outbreaks to worry about if Washington keeps blaming everyone but itself for the vaccine crisis.