CALIFORNIA PANDERS TO THE MERCURY FREAKS

Probably wise if it lifts vaccination rates

Vaccines containing a mercury-based preservative are now largely off-limits to children under 3 and pregnant women in California. The only exception to the new state law, which took effect on Saturday, is the vaccine against Japanese encephalitis virus, a deadly mosquito-borne illness endemic to certain parts of Asia. The new law, by Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, was aimed at reducing the risk of neurodevelopmental problems such as autism, which many parents believe can be traced to exposure to thimerosal, long used as a preservative in many vaccines.

Several large federal studies have shown no link between childhood vaccines and autism, but additional research is continuing. The U.S. Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1999 began to advocate the elimination of thimerosal from vaccines because some infants who received them were exposed to mercury at levels that exceeded Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Except for trace amounts, which are allowable under the new law, thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines.

The flu vaccine had been an exception. But concerns about its safety re-emerged in 2004, after the federal government recommended that babies between 6 months and 2 years be added to the list of those who should get annual flu shots. Aventis Pasteur, the company that manufactures the lion's share of flu vaccine, has increased the supplies of its thimerosal-free version in response to demand. "Based on what we know, we anticipate there will be an adequate supply of thimerosal-free flu vaccine for pregnant women and children under 3," said Department of Health Services spokesman Ken August.

The state has ordered 684,480 doses of flu vaccine to be distributed to counties for the upcoming season. The total includes 50,000 doses of thimerosal-free vaccine for children ages 1-3 and 15,000 doses for pregnant women. In addition, the state ordered 10,000 doses of FluMist, also thimerosal-free, for use in healthy people ages 5-49.

Aventis had opposed the Pavley bill, citing in a statement concerns that the ban could "undermine public confidence in immunization and ultimately deprive children of access to needed influenza vaccine." In response to industry worries and related concerns cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the legislation ultimately was amended to give the industry more time to stock up on thimerosal-free flu vaccine. The new law also allows for exceptions when no other alternatives are available or during public health emergencies.

August said Kim Belshe, health and human services secretary, issued an exception for the Japanese encephalitis virus vaccine: "Given the absence of a mercury-free vaccine against Japanese encephalitis virus and because the risks of fatal disease or brain injury far exceed any risk of mercury in the vaccine, the secretary is exercising her authority and temporarily exempting the vaccine from the provision of the law for a 12-month period." About 50,000 cases of the disease are reported annually in Asia. There is no cure, and up to 25 percent of those infected die from the disease.

August said that California distributes about 32,000 doses of the three-dose vaccine annually. Last year, 19,000 went to the military and the rest to people traveling to certain parts of Asia. It is unknown how many of those doses went to very young children or pregnant women.

Source






Bad bill of health for Queensland

Services provided by Queensland public hospitals have deteriorated during the tenure of the Beattie Government, and new national data rates the performance of the state's hospitals as among the worst in Australia. Released yesterday, the State of Our Public Hospitals June 2006 Report measures each state against its performance in 1998-99 and 2004-05.

Premier Peter Beattie said yesterday that he had not seen the report, but dismissed the findings, saying they were based on old figures. Mr Beattie said his Government had increased funding in October's mini-Budget and again in this year's Budget. "We've dramatically increased funding . . . $9 billion extra over the next five years," he said.

However, the report does provide a report card on the first seven years of his Government, according to the state Opposition and the Australian Medical Association. When Mr Beattie was elected in 1998, the number of people being admitted to public hospitals was above the national average. In 2004-05, the number admitted was 9 per cent lower than the national average. Public hospital beds reflect a similar trend. In 1998-99, Queensland had more hospital beds than the national average. But by 2004-05, it was below the national average. In terms of funding, in 1998-99, public patients in Queensland received only 81 per cent of the national average. This had declined to 79.8 per cent by 2004-05. Even the area of elective surgery, in which Queensland was rated the best in the country, has recorded a similar fall -- from 16 per cent above the national average in 1998-99 to just above the national average in 2004-05.

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott was critical of the information provided by Queensland on elective surgery. "The report is only as good as the quality of the information provided by the states. If the states give us dodgy information then we will get a dodgy result," Mr Abbott said.

AMA Queensland president Zelle Hodge acknowledged that the report had come out before the recent mini-Budget which increased public hospital funding. In spite of this, she said the report showed Queensland still had "a very, very, very long way to go". Dr Hodge said most of the recent health funding increases had gone in salaries and did not address the critical shortage of beds which was now affecting the provision of services in public hospitals.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************